IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.205 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I. ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Jagjit Singh Panjawani, ..Respondent. WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.206 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I. ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Ranjit Kumar Surendra Prasad Lal. ..Respondent WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.255 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I. ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Gurumukh Singh G. Panjiwani, ..Respondent. Mr.Vijay Kantharia with Mr.J.B.Mishra for Appellant. Mr.Kunal Damle with Mr.R.Ravindran for Respodnents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 7, 2009 P.C. : 1. These Appeals are against the common order passed by the learned Tribunal, which has set aside the penalty imposed on each of the Respondents. 2. The Respondent in CEXA No.205 of 2007 was the director of M/s. Golden Woods Ply Industries Pvt.Ltd.. The Respondent in CEXA No.206 of 2007 was the Accountant cum Excise Clerk cum Authorised Signatory of M/s.Gold Wood Ply Industries P.Ltd. dealing in preparation of invoices. Respondent in CEXA No.255 of 2007 was the owner of shop named “Golden Plywoods”, who is the brother of Respondent in CEXA No.205/07. The Commissioner in the case of each of these Respondents considering Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 imposed penalty on them for having abetted M/s. Golden Ply Wood for evasion of duty. Considering confiscation of goods and order for releasing the goods on payment of fine under Rule 26, penalty was imposed. Each of the Respondents preferred appeal before Commissioner(Appeals). On hearing the Respondents herein in those appeals, the Commissioner(Appeals) was pleased to confirm imposition of penalty. Aggrieved by that, present Respondents preferred an appeal before CESTAT. 3. Learned CESTAT by the impugned order was pleased to set aside the penalty imposed on each of the Respondents herein. The finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) on abetment of each of the Respondent has not been set aside. Once that be so, learned CESTAT misdirected itself in law in setting aside the penalty. Rule 26(2) makes it clear that the AO has discretion in case where abetment is established to impose penalty. That was done after considering the material on record. That order was confirmed in Appeal. The learned Tribunal therefore committed error of law in setting aside the penalty imposed without interfering with the findings as to abetment. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order of the AO and Commissioner(Appeals), be restored. In that light the following order. “Each of the impugned order against each of the Respondents are set aside and the order of the AO and Commissioner(Appeals) against each of the Respondents is restored. Appeals allowed of accordingly.” (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)