JUDGMENT : VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. Though the respondent has been served, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Hence, we have taken up the appeal for final disposal. 2. This Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'). 3. This Tax Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the Tribunal is correct in reducing penalty equivalent to 100% of duty evaded under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944 and whether the Tribunal is empowered to do so ?” 4. The CESTAT by its judgment dated 31.10.2005 set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173-Q read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be upheld in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that penalty imposed under the aforesaid Rule and Section is mandatory penalty and lesser penalty could not be imposed nor any discretion is available to the Tribunal or any other Authority to reduce the quantum of penalty. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 31.10.2005 passed by the CESTAT is quashed and set aside. The penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat – I vide order dated 26.2.2002 is restored and found to be payable by the respondent – assessee. The question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.