IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.E.A. No. 44 of 2005 Date of Decision: March 17, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak ...Appellant Versus M/s Sri Mani Ram Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: None. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has approached this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging order dated 2.8.2004, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). We have perused the order-in-original, appellate order as well as order dated 2.8.2004 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has reduced the penalty imposed upon the assessee-respondent from an amount of Rs. 1,23,902 to Rs. 25,000/-. We do not find any legal CEA No. 44 of 2005 infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal because it merely reduces the amount of penalty. The aforesaid exercise of discretion by the Tribunal is based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Those findings of facts cannot be reversed by this Court in an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) March 17, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2