Tribunal adjusts duty based on machine speed, highlights importance of verification and advance notification.

The Tribunal modified the adjudication order, determining that duty should be based on the machines' maximum speed of around 280 PPM as declared by the appellant until any alterations were made. The appellant was directed to inform authorities in advance of any changes to the machines' speed. The decision underscores the significance of verifying machine speeds for duty determination, relying on technical specifications and manufacturer's literature, and stresses the importance of transparency and advance notification of any alterations to ensure accurate duty payments.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of duty payment rules based on machine speed for Chewing Tobacco production.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Kuber Brand Tobacco, was paying duty under specific rules based on the speed of packing machines. The machines were categorized into two speed groups: up to 300 pouches per minute and 301 pouches per minute and above. The appellant declared the intention to run three machines to pack pouches at a certain speed. The Revenue, during visits, found the machines' speeds to be above 300 pouches per minute. The Assistant Commissioner determined the monthly production capacity of Chewing Tobacco based on this speed. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Chartered Engineer's certificate indicated the machines could be operated beyond 350 PPM, but the Department had not verified this claim. The Department contended that duty should be based on the maximum speed achievable by adjusting Servo Motors. The Tribunal noted that the Chartered Engineer's opinion lacked technical specifics on Servo Motors and relied on the manufacturer's literature stating a maximum speed of 280 PPM. Similar cases were cited where duty was determined based on the machines' actual operational speeds.

In light of the evidence, the Tribunal modified the adjudication order. It determined that the machines' maximum speed, as declared by the appellant, was around 280 PPM until any alterations were made. The appellant was directed to inform the authorities in advance of any changes to the machines' speed. The appeal was disposed of with these directives.

The judgment highlights the importance of verifying machine speeds for duty determination, relying on technical specifications and manufacturer's literature. It emphasizes the need for transparency and advance notification of any alterations to machine speeds to ensure accurate duty payments.

---