1 Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs is the appellant in all the appeals and respondent in the review petitions. Commissioner is aggrieved by the order of the Customs. Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench in C. E. Appeal Nos. 6, 3 and 34 of 2005 reducing the quantum of penalty from what has been statutorily prescribed under S.11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. C. E. Appeal Nos. 32 and 33 of 2005 have been filed by the Commissioner aggrieved by the reduction of quantum of penalty prescribed under R.96 ZP (3) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Tribunal. C. E. Appeal No. 42 of 2005 was also filed by the Commissioner aggrieved by the reduction of the quantum of penalty imposed under R.96Z P(l)(i) of the Rules. C. E. Appeal Nos. 8 and 27 of 2004 were filed by the review petitioners in R. P. Nos. 803 and 804 of 2005 pointing out the fact that this court while disposing of those appeals did not consider the grievances of the petitioners against the imposition of maximum penalty under R.96 ZO (II)(C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Counsel submitted that the authorities on a wrong interpretation of S.96 ZO (II)(C) imposed the maximum penalty