JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—This is a revenue's appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, which upheld the order of the Appellate Commissioner setting aside the penalty. The assessee is manufacturing the cut and grooved ACP, which is classified as excisable to duty under Chapter sub-heading 7610.90. Till 2002, he paid the duty. Thereafter, he stopped paying duty on the ground that it is not excisable to tax. However, after the department noticed the default and brought to their notice, they have paid the duty and the interest even before the issue of a show cause notice. However, a show cause notice came to be issued and an adjudication was conducted and the Assessing Authority held that duty is payable and for non-payment of duty, interest is payable and consequently, equal amount of penalty and hence appropriated the amount already paid and raised a demand for the balance. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner set aside the levy of penalty and interest but upheld the levy of duty. Aggrieved by the order of upholding the levy of duty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The revenue preferred an appeal so far as denial of interest and penalty is concerned. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by both the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Original Authority and held the goods are not excisable to tax. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal holding that the goods are not excisable to tax in CEA No. 17/2007. They also filed one more appeal challenging the setting aside of the imposition of penalty. The appeal preferred by the revenue in CEA No. 17/2007 was allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals was restored. In other words, the levy of duty was upheld whereas the levy of interest and penalty was not interfered with. In this appeal, it is the setting aside of the order of penalty, which is challenged. 2. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the assessee has paid the duty with interest even prior to issue of show cause notice. In this appeal, it is the setting aside of the order of penalty, which is challenged. 2. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the assessee has paid the duty with interest even prior to issue of show cause notice. If that is so, the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at all and consequently, the question of payment of penalty would not arise at all. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.