9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Hyderabad had confirmed demands being the duty payable on two cold rolling machines installed by the assessee for the period December 2001 to November 2002 in terms of provisions to Section 11A of CE Rules and penalty had also been imposed on the company and the authorized signatory. The assessee was able to get evidence to show that only one machine could function at one time on account of power supply. The certificate was issued by Assistant Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. (earlier known as Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board). The Commissioner after detailed examination of the certificate accepted the assessee s contention that although two machines had been installed but they were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to non-availability of adequate power supply, demanding duty on both the machines is unfair for the simple reason that usage of two machines one at a time would not result in double production as would be possible if two machines were used at a time simultaneously. I am therefore convinced that payment of duty by the appellants only on one installed machine @ Rs. 10,000/- per month during the period from December 2001 to November 2002 was proper. The confirmation of the duty demanded on the second machine for the said period is not justified for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the confirmation of payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be accepted. 5. The learned JDR submits that there was mis-declaration in the matter and the order is not legal and proper. 6. On our careful consideration, we notice that the certificate produced by the assessee from the Government authority, who are supplying electricity have not been challenged by the Revenue. They have also produced original power supply distribution letter dated 18.10.96 issued by the Superintendent Engineer, APSEB. The assessee could not produce this evidence before the Original Authority. The appellate authority, in terms of the then power to accept fresh evidence, has accepted the evidence. As there is no challenge to the evidence on record, therefore, we accept the impugned order. The contention raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
