1 IN HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2006 Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-1. ... Appellant. Vs. M/s. Vishal Textiles Processors ... Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr. Rohit Paqrdeshi, Advocates, for the appellant. None of the respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2009. P.C. 1. Appeal was admitted on several questions. In our opinion, the question would have to be slightly reformulated. The reformulated question reads as under :- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal had jurisdiction to reduce the penalty amount of Rs.1,75,000/- imposed 2 under Rule 96 ZQ(5) (ii) read with Rule 172 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.” 2. Apart from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231)ELT 3, the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Krishna Processors, 2009 (237) ELT 641 (SC) has taken the view that the penalty for breach of the Rules is also mandatory. In the light of that, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29.9.2005 to that extent is set aside and the order of the A.O. imposing penalty of Rs.1,75,000/- is restored. Appeal disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)