Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.184 OF 2006 Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,..Appellant Vs. M/s.Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd..Respondent Mr. J.B. Mishra, for the Appellant. Mr. Jitu Motwani i/b. P.D.S. Legal, for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G.KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2009 P.C. The Appeal was admitted. The question is refomulated as under:- “In view of the decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sony India Ltd. And Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, does the Tribunal have the powers to reduce mandatory penalty under Section 11AC or whether the penalty levied u/s.11AC shall be equal to the amount of duty u/s.11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 when the finding on duty evasion has been upheld.” 2. In the instant case the Tribunal upheld the finding on invocation of extended period of limitation. In other words the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and of the order in original has been confirmed. This is a finding of fact. No cross objection has been filed before this Court on that finding of fact, assuming that the Appellants are aggrieved by the said finding. 3. Once there is a concurrent finding of fact on the point of limitation the argument of bonafide belief has to be rejected. 4. Applying the ratio of the judgment in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T 3 (S.C.), the Tribunal could not have reduced the amount of penalty. In the light of that the impugned order is modified to the extent that the order reducing the penalty is set aside and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and Order in Original restored. Appeal disposed of accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)