1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise .. Appellant Versus M/s. Angadpal Industries Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. M.I. Sethna, Sr. Counsel with Mr. J.B. Mishra for Appellant. Mr. M.H. Patil for Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. The appeal preferred by the department is pending before the CESTAT. The present appeal is against the order passed by the CESTAT in favour of the respondent herein. The issue pertains to rejection of penalty levied under Rule 96(zq). In our opinion, considering the pendency of the appeal of revenue before the CESTAT it will be appropriate that both the appeals are heard and disposed of together. In they light of that the following order : Without going into the merits the impugned order is set aside. Mater restored to the file of CESTAT. The CESTAT to dispose of the appeal of the respondent along with the appeal filed by the revenue. Appeal disposed of accordingly. 2 We make it clear that the impugned order is set aside to the extent of penalty alone and that will be only question which will be considered by the tribunal. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)