Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition by the Department under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the 1944 Act) for directing the Customs, Excise and Gold (Appellate) Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :- (i) Whether CEGAT has not erred in holding that the suppression was not wilful in view of the fact that suppression is always wilful and also when the word wilful in Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be read with misstatement only and no with  suppression of facts? (ii Whether the CEGAT was right in waiving the Mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the instant case when there is clear cut suppression of facts (d factor) on the part of the party? 2. Respondent No. 1 M/s. D.K. Alloy (Private) Limited, Ludhiana is engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel which is chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the 1944, Act as per the Annual Production Capacity (hereinafter described as APC) of the unit. Respondent No. 1 filed application dated 11-9- 1997 under sub-rule (4) of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the 1944 Rules) and declared the value of factors, like d, n and I, etc., in terms of sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The competent authority provisionally determined the APC of the Unit of respondent No. 1 as 8204.082 Metric tonne per annum. 3. On 21-2-1998, the preventive staff of Central Excise Division, Ludhiana visited the factory premises of respondent No. 1 for verification of d, n and I factors declared by it. The competent authority provisionally determined the APC of the Unit of respondent No. 1 as 8204.082 Metric tonne per annum. 3. On 21-2-1998, the preventive staff of Central Excise Division, Ludhiana visited the factory premises of respondent No. 1 for verification of d, n and I factors declared by it. The visiting team conducted physical verification of d, n and I factors of the rolling mill and found that d factor, i.e., nominal centre distance between the pinions of the pinion stand connecting the last rolling mill drive of the finishing mill was 264 mm as against the 260 mm declared by respondent No. 1 and this had resulted in short determination of capacity of the mill to the tune of 2940.490 metric tonne per annum involving evasion of Central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 5,14,585/-. 4. On receipt of the report of preventive staff, show cause notice dated 30-3-1999 was issued to respondent No. 1 for misdeclaring d factor and clearing the goods without payment of duty. The authority concerned invoked Section 11A of the 1944, Act and Rule 9(2) of the 1944, Rules. Respondent No. 1 was also given notice for recovery of interest under Section 11AB and imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the 1944, Act read with Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the 1944, Rules. 5. After hearing the representative of respondent No. 1, the adjudicating authority passed order dated 27-10-1999 vide which it confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,14,585/-. The adjudicating authority also levied interest at the rate of 12% and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,15,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by respondent. No. 1 vide his order dated 12-5-2000 and quashed the levy of interest and penalty. He held that respondent No. 1 had discharged its duty liability and there was no justification to penalise it by charging interest and penalty. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the latter with the observation that in the absence of allegation of wilful misdeclaration or suppression, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to levy interest, or impose penalty. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the latter with the observation that in the absence of allegation of wilful misdeclaration or suppression, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to levy interest, or impose penalty. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A reading of show cause notice dated 30-3-1999 shows that Additional Commissioner (P & V) had invoked the extended period of limitation specified in Section 11A of the 1944, Act on the premise that respondent No. 1 had misdeclared d factor and cleared the goods without payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 5,14,585/-. However, there was no allegation against respondent No. 1 that it had deliberately suppressed the fact or made a misdeclaration regarding d factor of the capacity of the mill. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 through its Managing Director - Shri Tarsem Lal, it was clearly averred that there was no misdeclaration of d factor of APC of the mill. Shri Tarsem Lal stated that he had purchased 10 inch mill and the conversion of 10 inch into mm by applying the standard conversion table of 25.4 mm per inch, comes to 254 mm. Nevertheless, respondent No. 1 had declared highest figure of the slab 211 to 260. On this premise he submitted that the declaration of d factor was not correctly made but there was no mala fide on the part of respondent No. 1. The adjudicating authority did not accept the reply and held it to be a case of misdeclaration. 8. In our opinion, respondent No. 1 cannot be held guilty of misdeclaration of d factor of the APC of its mill. The argument of Shri Govind Goel that the admission made by Shri Tarsem Lal that d factor had not been correctly declared at the initial stage due to misunderstanding should be treated as deliberate misdeclaration is wholly untenable. 8. In our opinion, respondent No. 1 cannot be held guilty of misdeclaration of d factor of the APC of its mill. The argument of Shri Govind Goel that the admission made by Shri Tarsem Lal that d factor had not been correctly declared at the initial stage due to misunderstanding should be treated as deliberate misdeclaration is wholly untenable. In our view, the failure of respondent No. 1 to correctly disclose d factor due to misunderstanding of calculation cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as deliberate misdeclaration justifying invoking of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the 1944, Act and the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal did not commit any error by setting aside the levy of interest and penalty by the adjudicating authority. 9. In the premise aforesaid, we hold that neither of the questions framed by the Department requires a consideration by the Court. 10. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed.