1 IN HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.49 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise,Mumbai-1. ... Appellant Versus Sheli Peripherals ... Respondent Mr. A.S.Rao with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi,Advocates, for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Shetty with Mr. R.V.Shetty & Ms. Rita K.Joshi,Advocates, for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2009. P.C. 1. Admit on the following questions :- “i) Whether Tribunal has the powers to reduce mandatory penalty under 2 Section 11AC on the Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) Whether the Tribunal in the instant case was correct in holding that Reduction of penalty under Section 11AC was justified.” 2. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal on the issue of duty has remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification. It will not be really possible for us to interfere with that part of the finding as all issues will be open for consideration 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel however, draws our attention to para 5 of the Tribunal order which confirms the reduction of penalty, in our opinion, this paragraph will have to be set aside. Considering the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.). The law as now settled is that penalty is mandatory and it will be co-extensive with the duty paid. In the light of that, that part of the order upholding the penalty is set aside. The Assessing Officer assessing duty will have to follow the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) insofar as penalty is concerned. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) 3