IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.16 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Central Excise ....Appellant Versus M/s.Shridevi Tool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. A.S. Rao for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. Notice was issued to the respondents. The office note indicates that as on 4th May, 2009 neither the packet containing the notice nor the acknowledgment card has been received by the office. On behalf of the appellant learned Counsel files affidavit of service dated 11th June, 2009 showing that the respondents were served by notice on 13th April, 2009 and in fact received the notice on 15th April, 2009. 2. The order of A.O., was affirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals. In Appeal before CESTAT the Tribunal upheld the order imposing penalty under Section 11AC, however, reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. 3. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) which has taken the view that there is no discretion available on quantum of penalty under Section 11AC the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to stand restored. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra) we have followed the said view in Central Excise Appeal No.15 of 2009 in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Auto Power. 4. In the light of that the following question :- “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CESTAT is justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 11AC of the Act?” will have to be answered in the negative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)