JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in CESTAT Final Order No. 1159/2006, dated 4-7-2006 raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether interest can be recovered from an assessee for the delayed payment of duty, when the assessee opted for availment of exemption under GOI Notification No. 2/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-1-2001 under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944? 2. Whether penalty can be imposed under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 for not fulfilling the conditions of the aforesaid notification by the assessee? 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of motor vehicles. Under the Notification No. 2/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-1-2001, assessee was exempted from payment of excise duty in respect of excisable goods cleared by the assessee to NGOs, Trusts, etc. in order to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of Gujarat earthquake. The notification further reads that the assessee was required to obtain clearance within a period of three months or from such extended period from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the goods cleared by the assessee has been used in the earthquake affected area. In regard to certain vehicles which were cleared by the respondent-assessee to Gujarat, Utilization Certificate from the jurisdictional Magistrate could not be obtained by the respondent-assessee within the stipulated period, therefore the assessee on its own paid the excise duty payable in respect of the vehicles moved from Bangalore to Gujarat. The goods were cleared in the year 2001. 3. Thereafter, Revenue issued a show cause notice on 25-4-2005 stating that the assessee has paid duty at a later date which has resulted in the assessee liable to pay interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the assessee was called upon to show the cause within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. Assessee sent a detailed reply stating that the assessee is not liable to pay either interest or penalty since there is no willful default and that the appellant has no power to levy interest or penalty and requested the authorities to drop the proceedings. 4. Asst. Assessee sent a detailed reply stating that the assessee is not liable to pay either interest or penalty since there is no willful default and that the appellant has no power to levy interest or penalty and requested the authorities to drop the proceedings. 4. Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise by his order dated 4-8-2005 rejected the contentions of the assessee and directed the assessee to pay interest and penalty levied by him. Being aggrieved by the same, assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore which appeal also came to be rejected concurring with the views of the original Authority. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, assessee filed second appeal before CESTAT. The tribunal, considering the grievance of the parties, came to the conclusion that the proceedings were barred by time and that the appellant could not levy interest or penalty and set aside the orders passed by both the authorities. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the Revenue. 5. Mr. Shashikantha, Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue contends that since the respondent-assessee had failed to pay excise duty payable before removal of the vehicle, as there was delay in paying the duty by it has to be treated as willful disobedience and therefore assessee is liable to pay interest for the belated period and as a consequence penalty has to be levied on it. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ravishankar, Counsel appearing for the assessee, contends that in view of the contents of show cause notice calling upon the respondent-assessee either to pay interest or penalty does not arise at all and he further contends that as it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has willfully failed to pay the duty payable within the period, there cannot be any adjudication under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, interest cannot be charged on the respondent-assessee. He further contends that when interest Cannot be levied and when there is no adjudication under Sub-section (2) of Section 11AB, provisions of Section 11AC also does not attract and lastly contends that show cause notice issued in the year 2005 was barred by limitation, as proviso to Section 11A cannot be exercised by the authorities, therefore he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 7. 7. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the facts of this case are not in dispute to the following extent: That Notification No. 2/2001 dated 27-1-2001 exemption was granted to the assessee in respect of the vehicles removed from its factory to Gujarat to provide relief to the victims of Gujarat earthquake and that the assessee was required to obtain utilization certificate from the District Magistrate to the effect that the vehicles removed by the assessee were put to use as a relief vehicles to the victims affected under the earthquake. It is also not in dispute that utilization certificate has been granted in respect of most of the vehicles sent to Gujarat except the vehicles involved in the case on hand. It is also not in dispute that the assessee paid duty in the year 2001, since assessee could not get utilization certificate from the District Magistrate. Four years later a show cause notice has been issued to levy interest and penalty. 8. In the background of the above facts, what is required to be considered by us in this case is that whether interest and penalty can be collected by the Revenue from the assessee on account of the delayed payment of duty. It is not in dispute that the revenue can levy interest and penalty under Section 11AB and 11AC but the crucial point is how and in what manner interest and penalty can be levied by the revenue. It is not in dispute that the revenue can levy interest and penalty under Section 11AB and 11AC but the crucial point is how and in what manner interest and penalty can be levied by the revenue. Section 11AA, AB, AC reads as hereunder: Section 11AA: Interest on delayed payment of duty.- [Subject to the provisions contained in Section 11AB, where a person] chargeable with duty determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, fails to pay such duty within three months from the date of such determination, he shall pay, in addition to the duty, interest at such rate not below 10% and not exceeding 30% per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Board, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of payment of such duty: Provided that where a person chargeable with duty determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, fails to pay such duty within three months from such date, then, such person shall be liable to pay interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of payment of such duty. Explanation 1: Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination shall be the date on which an amount of duty is first determined to be payable. Explanation 2: Where the duty determined to be payable is increased or further increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination shall be,- (a) for the amount of duty first determined to be payable, the date on which the duty is so determined; (b) for the amount of increased duty, the date of order by which the increased amount of duty is first determined to be payable; (c) for the amount of further increase of duty, the date of order on which the duty is so further increased.] Section [11AB. Interest on delayed payment of duty.- (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person liable to pay duty as determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A shall, in addition to the duty, be liable to pay interest at such rate now below 10% and not exceeding 30% per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Board, from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid under this Act or the rules made thereunder or from the date of such erroneous refund, as the case may be, but for the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, till the date of payment of such duty. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where the duty became payable before the date on which the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1996 receives the assent of the President. Explanation 1- Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the interest shall be payable on such reduced amount of duty. Explanation 1- Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the interest shall be payable on such reduced amount of duty. Explanation 2- Where the duty determined to be payable is increased or further increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the interest shall be payable on such increased or further increased amount of duty.] Section [11AC.- Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases.- Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined: Provided that where the duty determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal, or as the case may be, the court, then, for the purpose of this section, the duty as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account.] From the combined reading of these Sections, it is clear to us that interest and penalty can be levied against an assessee if there is an adjudication under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A and such adjudication can be made by the Revenue only if excise duty has not been levied or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, it is clear that if there is a fraud, collusion or any willful statement or suppression of facts are involved in a case either in not paying the duty or not paying the duty in full, in such circumstances, revenue would get power to levy interest and penalty. Therefore, it is clear that if there is a fraud, collusion or any willful statement or suppression of facts are involved in a case either in not paying the duty or not paying the duty in full, in such circumstances, revenue would get power to levy interest and penalty. But in the instant case, show cause notice issued is silent in regard to the averments to be made as required under Section 11A and we are also of the opinion that there is no adjudication as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, interest and penalty cannot be levied by the Revenue invoking Section 11A and Section 11AC. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kaur & Singh v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) and in the case of Pratibha Processors and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 8 AD SC 261 to show under what circumstances interest and penalty can be levied. In the case of Kaur & Singh, Apex Court has categorically stated if the show cause notice issued is beyond six months and if there is no collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention with an intention to evade payment of excise duty, such demand can be treated as barred by time under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. In the instant case also, show cause notice is of the year 2005. Excise duty has been paid by the assessee in the year 2001 and the show cause notice is issued beyond one year as prevailed. In view of the absence of material allegations required to be made under the show cause notice and issuance of show cause notice four years after the payment of duty, claim of the appellant has to be held as barred by limitation and in view of non-adjudication of the claim of the assessee under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, substantial questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.