1 IN HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise,Mumbai-1 ... Appellant Versus M/s. Tanzeem Screenarts ... Respondents Mr. P.S.Jetly with Mr.Rajinder Kumar,Advocates, for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2009. P.C. 1. The appellant has filed affidavit of service on the respondents. None present for the respondents. The matter was heard. 2 2. The present appeal was admitted on the following question :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in reducing the amount of penalty ignoring the mandatory provision of Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended, which provides that a person who is liable to pay the duty as determined shall also be liable to pay penalty equal to duty to determined.” 2. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.2,39,452.39. That amount was reduced in appeal by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), penalty has to be co-extensive with the duty which is mandatory. In the light of that, the order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside and the order of the A.O. Imposing penalty of Rs.2,39,452.39 is restored. Appeal disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) 3