JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (12) S.T.R. 765 (Tribunal)] which has set aside the imposition of penalty in a suo-motu proceedings by the Commissioner. 2. The Asst. Commissioner, after due consideration of the grounds urged, held, no penalty is leviable for the reason that the service tax has been paid under Amnesty Scheme. However the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs.7,00,000/- under Sec. 78 and penalty of Rs.200/- per day under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act, in pursuance of the power of suo motu revision. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sunitha Shetty, (2004) 174 ELT 313 (Kar.) and also the judgment of the Tribunal in M/s. Majestic Mobikes (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. 2008 (11) S.T.R. 609 (Tri.) held that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising his suo motu powers to interfere with a discretionary order passed by the original authority where he was satisfied with the cause shown and he had not imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The judgment rendered by the Tribunal in Majestic Mobikes (P) Ltd. has been upheld by this court. Therefore in view of the judgment rendered by this court in C.C.E. v. Sunitha Shetty as well as Majestic Mobikes (P) Ltd. case, once the original authority being satisfied about the cause shown, exercised its power under Sec. 80 of the Act and did not impose penalty, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with such discretionary orders and impose penalty in pursuance of his revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order and setting aside the same. 4. No merit. Appeal dismissed.