*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.108/2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. ..Appellant -Versus- M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (TD), Mumbai. ..Respondents ........... Mr.P.S.Jetly, for the Appellant/Revenue. Mr.Mehul Shah i/b ANS Law Associates, for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED, JJ. Date : 08th March, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused appeal. 2 This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. 3 The appeal was admitted to consider the questions which evolve around Section 11(A) r/w Rule 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. When the appeal was argued before the Tribunal it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the issue in respect of the power to impose or reduce penalty is pending before the *2* Apex Court. However, the Tribunal appears to have affirmed the order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby the imposition of duty was confirmed and penalty was reduced. 4 The learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue submits that now two judgments of the Apex Court are holding the field namely Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, reported in 2008(231) ELT 3 (SC) which has been explained in subsequent judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, reported in 2009(238) ELT 3 (SC). 5 The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the factual matrix will have to be examined and the facts will have to be investigated to decide whether or not Section 11(AC) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted. He, therefore, submits that the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal since the Tribunal did not deal with the contentions of the parties on merits by reasoned order. 6 We were taken through the order of the Tribunal. The order of Tribunal is unreasoned order. Order did not deal with the rival contentions of the parties giving reasons. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside for want of reasons and matter needs to be *3* remanded back to the Tribunal. 7 In the result, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restore the appeal to the file of Tribunal with direction to decide the appeal a fresh after considering the rival contentions of the parties on merits by a reasoned order following the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal is expected to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. All contentions on merits are kept open. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)