Penalty for alleged abetment in area-based exemption claim fails where electricity supply shortfall alone does not prove culpable conduct.

Penalty for alleged aiding and abetting of an area-based exemption claim was found unsustainable because the appellant was not the manufacturer seeking the exemption and merely leased premises to another unit. The only for penalty was that the appellant could not supply adequate electricity to support the lessee's production, which was treated as insufficient to show any actionable role in a false claim of enhanced installed capacity. On these facts, mere inability to generate and supply enough power did not establish abetment or other conduct warranting penal liability, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained against the appellant for allegedly aiding and abetting another unit in availing area based exemption by supplying electricity.

Analysis: The only basis for penalty was the finding that the appellant could not supply adequate electricity to the lessee unit and therefore had facilitated a false claim of enhanced installed capacity under the exemption notification. The appellant was not the manufacturer claiming the exemption, and the leased steel unit was separately operating under its own arrangement. Mere inability to generate and supply sufficient electricity to support the lessee's production did not establish any actionable role by the appellant warranting penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty on the appellant was not sustainable and was set aside.

---