JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, Actg. C.J. 1. We have heard Mr. Gaurang Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This Tax Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether or not the Tribunal is justified in holding that the goods in question were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(p) of the Act in view of the Notification No. 205/84 as amended declaring "synthetic yarn" as notified goods vide Notification No. 5/93-Cus. (NS), dated 15-1-1993? (B) Whether in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.40 lacs imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1993?" 2. Before answering the substantial questions, we find that this Tax Appeal is not maintainable as Pankaj Manubhai Shah upon whom penalty of Rs.40 lac was imposed along with the penalty of Rs.40 lac imposed upon the present respondent vide order dated 30th October, 1997, has not been made party in this appeal. Even the company has not been made party to this appeal and the order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the Tribunal has become final so far as they are concerned. The Tribunal has set aside the order dated 30th October, 1997 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Surat, on the ground that the confiscation under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be upheld since Notification No. 205/84 was amended declaring "synthetic yarn" as notified goods under Section 11B of Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Notification No. 5/93-Cus. (NS), dated 15-1-1993. The judgment of the Tribunal is based on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of S.S. Gupta v. CC reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 441 (Tri.-Del). However, since the judgment of the Tribunal has become final so far as the company and another director, namely Pankaj Manubhai Shah are concerned, this appeal challenging the penalty imposed upon M/s. Bharatbhai Ajitrai Doshi would not be maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Tax Appeal as the order of confiscation has been set aside and that has not been challenged and has become final. Consequently, the penalty imposed pursuant to order of confiscation cannot sustain once the confiscation order has been held to be bad. The appeal is thus dismissed. The substantial questions are answered accordingly. In Favour of Assessee.