JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.— The instant appeal is directed against the order impugned dated 18-8-2006 passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore, in Appeal No. Excise/1 141/2003. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was correct in held that the respondent have reversed the credit even before the issue of show cause notice and since the same is not contested, the reversal of the credit is upheld? (ii) Whether the Tribunal, write in upholding that penalty is not leviable in the matter? (iii) Whether the Tribunal considered the fact that whether the goods mentioned in Rule 57AB 1(11) for the purposes of credit of Special Excise Duty or inputs or final products? 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. multi-utility passenger vehicles falling under chapter sub-heading 8702.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. 3. On 16-3-2001. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the respondent-assessee replied to the same. After considering the reply, the assessing authority passed the order dt. 17-9-2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in turn, rejected the appeal and upheld the original order passed by the jurisdictional competent authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-assessee filed Appeal No. E/1141/2003 on the file of CESTAT South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The said appeal came up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal who in turn after hearing both sides and on considering the relevant material on record, taking into consideration, the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, (2004) 93 ECC 477 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of penalty was by its order dated 18-8-2006. Assailing the correctness of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure-D, the instant appeal is preferred. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue, at the outset submitted, that the respondent-assessee has suppressed the fact to evade tax and this aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor appreciated by the Tribunal and proceeded to pass the order impugned. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue, at the outset submitted, that the respondent-assessee has suppressed the fact to evade tax and this aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor appreciated by the Tribunal and proceeded to pass the order impugned. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5. Per Contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, substantiating the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order strictly following the well settled law of the Apex Court. Further, he pointed out that, in the order passed by the Tribunal, the Counsel for Revenue has fairly conceded that penalty is not leviable in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Further a specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that they have not contested the case and therefore, he submitted that the instant appeal filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 6. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is whether the order impugned passed by Tribunal is sustainable in law? 7. After careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore, it is not in dispute that the matter was taken up for consideration by (he Tribunal, who held that penalty is not leviable in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sree Krishna Pipes. Further, it is pertinent to note that this Court, in the case of respondent-assessee itself, i.e. in the case of Commr. of LTU Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 253 ELT 178 (Kar.) in CEA. No. 25/2007 disposed of on 12-3-2010. has held 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 the Act. It is significant to note that the show-cause notice, in this case has been issued on 16-3-2001. It does not whisper anything regarding fraud, misrepresentation etc. It is significant to note that the show-cause notice, in this case has been issued on 16-3-2001. It does not whisper anything regarding fraud, misrepresentation etc. Therefore, we find no force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground made out by the appellant's counsel. Hence, the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue are answered against the revenue, for the aforesaid reasons having regard to the facts. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.