Tribunal held that after the resignation of the erstwhile directors, the Central Excise Department had conducted a search at the premises of the assessee. The erstwhile directors were not associated with the assessee’s matters subsequent to their retirement and were not aware of the assessments completed and consequent penalty levied. Being unaware, they did not represent the assessee either in quantum proceedings or in penalty proceedings. Consequent to labour unrest and the financial difficulties faced by the present directors, they also could not represent before the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) . The penalty proceedings initiated were separate from the quantum assessments and if the assessee could prove in the penalty proceedings that the additions in the quantum assessments were not warranted, necessarily the penalty imposed had to be deleted. Since the assessee had not been represented before the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the penalty proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity, as a last chance, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall co-operate with the Department and furnish necessary documents and evidence to prove its case. For the purpose the issue was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals).( AY.2000-01 to 2004-05)