ORDER : Leave granted. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein holding that a discretion is available to the authorities herein to impose reduced penalty depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 2. The High Court recorded the following conclusions in support of its judgment and order appearing in para-6, which read as follows: “From the reading of the above observation, we are of the view that the said judgment cannot be regarded as laying down an absolute proposition of law that wherever the provision gives power to the authorities concerned to impose penalty equivalent to the duty payable, the authorities have to impose the maximum penalty and cannot reduce the same depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The aforesaid conclusions in the form of answer was given by the High Court as against the question of law framed in the following manner: “(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in exercising the non-existent element of discretion under Rule 96 ZP (3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 to reduce the quantum of penalties that was rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the lower appellate forum after due process of law and based on the findings that the respondents has defaulted in payment of duty?” For answering the aforesaid question of law, the High Court referred to various decisions of this Court as also of some of the High Courts and thereafter came to the aforesaid conclusion which are extracted herein before. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the present appellant filed Special Leave Petitions on which notice was issued. However, despite service of notice on the respondent, none appeared on its behalf and accordingly we proceed to hear the counsel appearing for the appellant when the matters are placed before us for arguments. 5. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra in view of the decision rendered by Three Judges Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 369 . Counsel submits that in the said decision what was interpreted by this Court was Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO. Counsel submits that in the said decision what was interpreted by this Court was Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO. Counsel also submits that what is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case is Rule 96-ZP which is also pari materia and identical with that of Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96- ZO. 6. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellant, we have perused the provisions of Rule 96-ZP and compared the said provisions with that of Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO. On such appreciation and comparison what we find is that the provisions of Rule 96-ZP are pari-materia and are identical with that of Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO. 7. In Dharamendra's case (Supra), this Court referred to the Union Budget of the year 1996-1997 wherein Section 11-AC of the Act was introduced and therein a position was made clear that there is no scope for any discretion. This Court also referred to Para 136 of the Union Budget in which reference was made to the provisions stating that the levy of penalty is a mandatory penalty and that in Notes on Clauses also the similar indication has been given. 8. After considering all the concerned aspects, this Court finally held that the plea that Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be sustained meaning thereby that the said Rules are mandatory and there is no discretion available for reducing the penalty. Provisions of Rule 96-ZP being identical and pari materia with that of Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO, the ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by Three Judges Bench is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Consequently, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the High Court as also by the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the adjudicating authority, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.