IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Central Excise Appeal No.194 OF 2006. Central Excise Appeal No.194 OF 2006. Central Excise Appeal No.194 OF 2006. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III ..Appellant versus M/s. Kirloskar Penumatics Co. Ltd ..Respondent. Mrs.N.V.Masurkar with Mr.Parag Vyas for the Appellant Mr.Prakash Shah i/b.PDS Legal for the respondent. Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & S.R.Sathe, JJ. S.R.Sathe, JJ. S.R.Sathe, JJ. Dated : 16th August, 2007 Dated : 16th August, 2007 Dated : 16th August, 2007 P.C. 1. The Revenue has framed the following questions. a) Whether CESTAT was justified in setting aside the demand of interest confirmed by Commissioner, Central Excise under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944? b) Whether CESTAT was justified in setting aside penalty levied under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? -2- c) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, CESTAT was justified in holding that the charge of supression is not established.? 2. We have heard the parties on the question and we have also perused the impugned order. The Commissioner, after considering the record passed the order. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. We find no reason as to why the penalty was imposed. 3. In the light of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for reconsideration according to law. 3. Appeal accordingly is allowed with no order as to costs. 4. We make it clear that all points are kept open for consideration by the Tribunal. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) -3- (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.R.Sathe, J.)