1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Philips India Ltd. ... Respondent. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b. S.I.Shah and Co. for the appellant. Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 27th July 2010. P.C. : Heard Ms.S.I.Shah, learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue and Mr.Prakash Shah for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, despite confirming the concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner 2 (Appeals) interalia that the provisions of Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules had been rightly invoked in view of the fact that there was suppression on the part of the assessee with the intention to evade duty? 2. Whether non-disclosure of removal of inputs in the statutory records filed with the department like RT-12 etc., would amount to suppression of facts, attracting penalty under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944? If yes, whether the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty? 2. Ms.Shah, learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue took us through order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority. She placed reliance on rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in support of her submission. While relying on rule 57-I, she found it difficult to take her submission to the logical end for want of necessary allegations leading to non filing of the returns within prescribed period by the respondent. She also could not point out any allegation in the show cause notice leading to fraud, wilful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with the intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the respondent. She sought to rely upon one sentence appearing in the show cause notice; wherein mis-utilisation of credit on inputs based on suppression of facts is alleged. However, the allegations cannot be read in isolation. They 3 cannot be read bereft of the context in which they were made. In absence of ingredients of rule 57-I, being part of the show cause notice, it is not possible to find out whether there was any suppression of facts by the respondent. Mere bald allegations cannot advance the case of Revenue. 3. The Tribunal has recorded positive finding that the goods, which were declared to be obsolete, were not removed without payment of duty but while removing those goods duty amount has been paid. 4. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case with which no fault can be found. 3. In the result, appeal is without any substance. The same is dismissed answering the questions against the Revenue with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)