JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— The appeal is by the defendant challenging the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore, in Appeal Nos. E/397 & 398/2004 dated 30-8-2006 [2007 (207) E.L.T. 573 (Tri.-Bang.). The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal is legal and correct in reducing the penalties imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 57AH of Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was willful misstatement and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty since CESTAT concern with the findings of the Commissioner on the issued/grounds involved and confirmed and demand of duty? (ii) When the Tribunal's order is legal and correct, in the absence of statutory provisions to that effect? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is legal and correct in reducing the penalty imposed Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, even though there was willful misstatement and suppression of facts and contravention of provision of Central Excise Act/Rules with intent to evade payment of duty and it had concurred with the Commissioners findings on the role of Shri Ram Shah, MD of the assessee company in the complicity involved? 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The main grievance of the revenue before us is that the Tribunal without any jurisdiction has reduced the penalty levied under Section 11AC to Rs. 1,200/- and similarly reduced the penalty to Rs. 14,500/- and set aside the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 10.00 lakh under Rule 173Q. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal without assigning any reason has set aside the levy of penalty under different provisions of law and granted relief to the assessee. First of all, it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider under what circumstances such power could be exercised by the Tribunal and whether such power can be exercised by the Tribunal under any relevant provision of law. It is for the Tribunal to consider the relevant provisions of law and the cause shown by the assessee in order to give relief to the assessee. It is for the Tribunal to consider the relevant provisions of law and the cause shown by the assessee in order to give relief to the assessee. Since such an effort has not been made by the Tribunal, the order passed by it without assigning any reason has to be set aside and we have to allow the appeal without considering the substantial questions of law. 5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. All contentions are left open and it is for the Tribunal to consider the case of the parties on merits by following the judgment's of the Supreme Court and relevant provisions of the Excise Act.