ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), challenges the common order dated 28th July, 2017 passed by the Central, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in respect of the respondent before us and two others. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, challenging the reduction of penalty on the respondent herein from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112 (a) of the Act. 2. Mr. Walve, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges only the following reframed question of law, for our consideration :- "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty levied under Section 113(a) of the Act without assigning any reason and more so when the smuggling of ''Iridium metal'' has been proved by the Department?" 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal held that the respondent herein was involved in the smuggling of ''Iridium'' into India. However, after having upheld the imposition of the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, it reduced quantum of the penalty upon the Respondent from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. This on the ground that the factum of smuggling has been proved by way of circumstantial evidence only and kingpin of the smuggling activity viz. one Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh, was not interrogated by the Revenue. 4. The grievance of the Revenue is that the reduction of penalty in the facts of this case was not justified. This, particularly, after the impugned order of the Tribunal held the Respondent herein along with two others was guilty of smuggling Iridium into India. 5. We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal, reduced the penalty by holding that smuggling has been proved only by way of circumstantial evidence and in the absence of interrogating the kingpin i.e. Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh. Thus, it was of the view that penalty as imposed of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Act, is on the higher side. It is not the case where no reasons has been assigned for reduction of penalty. 6. Accordingly, the view taken by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case, is a possible view and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Appeal disposed of. It is not the case where no reasons has been assigned for reduction of penalty. 6. Accordingly, the view taken by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case, is a possible view and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs.