JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenges the common order dated 17th April, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order [dated] 17th April, 2017 disposes the appeal filed by the partnership firm and its partner i.e. appellant herein. 2. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, is the order of the Tribunal is in breach of principle of natural justice inasmuch as it does not deal with appellant''s appeal in respect of penalty and yet dismissed it for reason for having confirmed the duty demand and penalty in the case of partnership firm in which the appellant is a partner?" 3. At the request of the Learned Counsel for the parties, appeal itself is being disposed of at this stage, as the dispute is within a narrow scope. 4. The appellant is a partner of one M/s. Gurunanak Metal Works. The duty demand has been confirmed and penalties have been imposed on M/s. Gurunank Metal Works and its partner-the appellant herein. This, by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The above order of the Assistant Commissioner of Excise has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 5. The appellant as well as the partnership-firm i.e. M/s. Gurunanak Metal Works filed appeals to the Tribunal from the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The impugned order of the Tribunal has disposed of both the appeals by common order dated 17th April, 2017. The impugned order of the Tribunal has only referred to the facts and law, applicable in respect of the partnership-firm. This with regard to the demand of duty and imposition of penalty. No mention, much less consideration of the appeal of the appellant, is found in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Merely because penalty is imposed upon the partnership-firm, it would not, ipso facto, follow that penalty on the partners, is to be upheld. The impugned order of the Tribunal ought to have dealt with Appellant''s appeal separately, before coming to a conclusion that the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was correct. 6. Merely because penalty is imposed upon the partnership-firm, it would not, ipso facto, follow that penalty on the partners, is to be upheld. The impugned order of the Tribunal ought to have dealt with Appellant''s appeal separately, before coming to a conclusion that the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was correct. 6. In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned order dated 17th April, 2017 to the extent it disposes of the appellant''s appeal, is a non-speaking order. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. 7. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 17th April, 2017 to the extent it relates to appellant herein. Thus, appeal of the appellant herein before the Tribunal, is restored to it for fresh disposal, in accordance with law by a speaking order. 8. Accordingly, appeal disposed of in the above terms.