JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Heard Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The controversy involved in this case is very limited. The revisionist had been allowed to use Naptha and natural gas for the production of electricity for producing the material i.e. iron-casting. They have produced the electricity and had used in the township to the extent of 5227.344 MWH. It is admitted to the revisionist that they were not entitled to use the electricity produced for the township. 3. The assessing authority as well as the Tribunal has quantified this amount and it matches with the amount stated in the statement made by the assessee for the year 1999-2000. 4. Since there is a clear violation made by the assessee, the penalty imposed on the assessee for this amount is wholly justified. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that no notice was given to the assessee before imposition of the penalty but from the exchange of affidavits and pleadings before the Tribunal on fact it becomes very clear that an amount of 5227.344 MWH electricity was used for the township and they were not entitled to do so. I see no merit in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed.