IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent. R.V.Desai, senior counsel with Rajindra Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 23rd June 2010. P.C. : Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant- Revenue. None for the respondent in spite of service. 2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 5th October, 2005 to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the Judgment of the Tribunal can be sustained for the reason that the Tribunal has failed to explain as to why the Tribunal is interfering with the penalty imposed and confirmed by adjudicating authority especially when in para 4 of the said order, Tribunal has come to the conclusion that intention to evade duty was apparent? 2. When the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, equal to the duty so determined, whether the appellate Tribunal has any discretion to reduce the mandatory penalty so imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has the power to substitute its own discretion for that of the adjudicating authority, who has been conferred with the power to impose penalty by way of applying the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without any justification? 3. The impugned order imposes penalty of Rs.5,000/- for the suppression of facts leading to intention to evade duty. Having gone through the order, we find that the Tribunal has exercised discretion with which no fault can be found. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1978 (2) ELT (J159) (SC), no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)