ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. Leave granted. A notice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Raipur on 18-2-1992 to show cause as to why excise duty of Rs 5,10,271 should not be recovered from the Company. On a reply having been filed by the Company, the Collector, vide order dated 1-7-1992, confirmed the duty and also imposed penalty of Rs 2.5 lakhs upon the Company. 2. Against the order of the Collector, the Company filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (now Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (for short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal by its order dated 18-11-1992, stayed the recovery of excise duty along with penalty during the pendency of the appeal. 3. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed a criminal complaint being Criminal Complaint No. 17 of 1994 on 9-11-1994 against the appellant Company and some of its officials in the Court of the Additional Chief Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore. The said complaint was subsequently transferred to the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jabalpur and was renumbered as Criminal Case No. 966 of 2000. 4. The Tribunal by its order dated 21-12-1995 set aside the order-in-original passed by the Collector and remanded the matter of the Collector for re- adjudication. 5. In the meantime, the appellants in these appeals filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3048 of 2005 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 966 of 2000. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 22-8-2005, has rejected the said petition. Hence, these appeals. 6. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Tribunal on 21-12-1995, the Commissioner of Central Excise again confirmed the demand of duty and penalty. The said order, upon being challenged, has been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 3-4-2007. It is stated that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the said order, meaning thereby, the same has attained finality. 7. The said order, upon being challenged, has been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 3-4-2007. It is stated that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the said order, meaning thereby, the same has attained finality. 7. It is submitted by Mr Soli Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the appellants that in view of the fact that the levy of duty and penalty have been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 3-4-2007 and the same having attained finality, the prosecution on the charge of evasion of duty and consequent levy of penalty cannot continue. Mr V. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute this proposition and further states that the Revenue does not press for the prosecution of the appellants. 8. In view of the statement made by Mr V. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, we allow these appeals and quash Criminal Complaint No. 966 of 2000 pending before the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jabalpur, M.P.