JUDGMENT N. Kumar , JJ.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal holding imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is improper and the penalty is payable only under Rule 27 of the above Rules, that is, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- only. During the course of scrutiny of TR 6 challans by the Accountant General's Audit Party, it was noticed that payment claimed to have been made by the assessee for the month of March, 2006 was not accounted in the Government Account. On being informed and on verification of facts, the assessee through their bank remitted amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- along with interest of Rs. 1,87,000/- on 3-1-2009. The assessee contended that they had specifically advised their banker to pay the amount from their overdraft account and accordingly the banker acknowledged the TR 6 challans on 31-3-2006 vide Challan No. 10 & 11 of 2005-06. The bank did not debit the account on the same day. It is only when the said defect was pointed out after reconciliation and verification, when they came to know the same, they have taken proper steps to make the payment. However, a show cause notice came to be issued calling upon him to show cause why penalty should not be imposed u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The further addendum to the show cause notice was issued calling upon the Assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on the Director for the Assessee Company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The same was replied to denying the liability to pay the penalty. 2. However, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,20,000/- both on the Director Sri Akshay Tulsiyan and Sri S. Ravishankar, Finance Controller under Rule 26. 3. Aggrieved to the same, they preferred an appeal. 4. The appellate authority upheld the levy of penalty but reduced the quantum to Rs. 1 lakh. 5. Aggrieved with the said order, they preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held, to the facts of the case, Rule 26 is not attracted, penalty is leviable only under Rule 27, maximum being Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly it set aside the order passed in appeal and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each on the aforesaid two persons. 6. 5. Aggrieved with the said order, they preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held, to the facts of the case, Rule 26 is not attracted, penalty is leviable only under Rule 27, maximum being Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly it set aside the order passed in appeal and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each on the aforesaid two persons. 6. Aggrieved by he said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the revenue Rule 26 reads as follows: 26. Penalty for certain offences. - (1) Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees two thousand, whichever is greater. (2) Any person, who issues- (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified herein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abets in making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made thereunder like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. 8. For application of the Rule, the condition precedent is any excisable goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or the Rules, then penalty is leviable under the aforesaid provision. 9. In the instant case, admittedly no excisable goods are confiscated. The offence alleged against these respondents is, they were not diligent in seeing that the cheques issued towards payment of the excise duty were whether encashed or not. Therefore, the said offence does not fall under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules. 10. Rule 27 reads as under: 27. 9. In the instant case, admittedly no excisable goods are confiscated. The offence alleged against these respondents is, they were not diligent in seeing that the cheques issued towards payment of the excise duty were whether encashed or not. Therefore, the said offence does not fall under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules. 10. Rule 27 reads as under: 27. General penalty: A breach of these rules shall, where no other penalty is provided herein or in the Act, be punishable with a penalty which may extent to five thousand rupees and with confiscation of the goods in respect of which the offence is committed. 11. When the case of the respondents do not fall under Rule 25 & 26, Rule 17 is attracted as the negligence is attributed to the respondents do not fall within Rule 26. Rule 27 is applicable and accordingly they are liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- penalty as ordered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not call for interference. No substantial question of law is involved. No merit. 12. Appeal is dismissed. Application for stay is accordingly dismissed.