( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 35g (3) of the Central Excise Act by which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :

(I) Whether the Honble Tribunal was justified in maintaining the order of imposition of penalties though reduced in view of its own observation and finding that duty liability does not arise hence the demand of duty is not correct and not sustainable in law? (II) Whether the order of imposition of penalties can be sustained when the penalties were proposed to be imposed merely on the allegation that glass bottles were sold during the period in question on which Modvat Credits were already availed of and the said allegation has been set aside by the Honble Tribunal? (III) Whether the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), for short impose penalty on an assessee after holding that the charge of evasion of duty, against the assessee had not been proved and the liability for duty itself do not arise? (IV) Whether CEGAT after holding as not proved the charge under Rule 57f (Under which alone it was necessary for an assessee to seek permission/give intimation and pay duty before removing Modvat credit ava