2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.195 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs ...Appellants. v. M/s. Castrol (I) Ltd. ...Respondents. Mr.P.S.Jetly with Mrs.N.V.Masurkar i/by T.C.Kaushik , advs. For the Appellants. Mr.Anupam Dighe i/by India Law Aliance , adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 18TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1 The question as earlier framed by this Court was in respect of discretionary powers under Section 11AC. After hearing the parties in our opinion, the question which arises is as under: “1. Whether the adjudicating/appellate authority has discretionary powers to impose a lesser penalty in case of demands where proviso to Section 11AC has been upheld ? 2 In our opinion, apart from the judgment in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2007 (215) ELT 321 SC, considering the contention of the assessee that there was no intent to evade duty, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan 2 Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) will also have to be considered . 3 Considering the above, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside, matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for de-novo disposal of the appeal according to the law and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred earlier. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)