{field 10} {field 4}

Heard both sides. We find that there has been a categorical observation by the Bench that the appellants have been regularly filing monthly ER-1 returns indicating the quantity of computers manufactured and cleared every month. Therefore there was no suppression, nevertheless of a material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. We find that when such findings are given by the Bench it is consequential that penalty under Rule 25 in respect of Appeal No. E/1045/2009 should have been set aside. We find that this is a mistake on record, therefore we are in agreement with the contention of the appellant. Secondly the submission of the appellant on the incomplete sentence at the end of para 6 are also accepted.