Installed capacity certification governs concessional excise exemption; departmental doubts cannot override the competent authority's certificate.

Eligibility for concessional excise exemption under Notifications No. 24/1991-CE and 5/1993-CE depended on certification of the cement plant's installed capacity by the designated competent authority. The Director/Commissioner of Industries repeatedly certified the capacity at 1,98,000 tonnes per annum, and that certificate could not be displaced by internal departmental material, collateral declarations, or a different certificate. The adjudicating authority could not reappraise or ignore the competent authority's certification; if the Department disputed it, the proper course was to seek modification or cancellation from that authority. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the notification benefit was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the concessional benefit under Notification No. 24/1991-CE and Notification No. 5/1993-CE on the basis of the certificate issued by the competent authority certifying the installed capacity of the cement plant as not exceeding the prescribed limit.

Analysis: The concessional notifications made eligibility dependent on certification of installed capacity by the designated authority. The competent authority, namely the Director/Commissioner of Industries, had repeatedly certified the installed capacity at 1,98,000 tonnes per annum even after the Department placed contrary material before it. The Department's reliance on internal documents, declarations made for other purposes, and a different certificate could at best create doubt, but could not override the certificate issued and reiterated by the statutory competent authority. The adjudicating authority could not sit in appeal over that certificate; the proper course, if the Department doubted its correctness, was to seek modification or cancellation from the competent authority, which had already considered the objections and maintained the certificate.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the notification benefit and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---