ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. These Tax Appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2007 delivered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (Hereinafter to be referred to as CESTAT, Kolkata), whereby the appeals preferred by the respondent was allowed mainly on the ground that the case of the respondent (original petitioner) was covered by the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CCE v. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2003) 158 ELT 545 (SC)= (2004) 1 SCC 597 and as there is no provision for penalty under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 which were enacted under Section 30 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Penalty imposed vide Order-in-Original dated 30/31st October, 2001 under Section 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not leviable for the periods for which the penalty is imposed , i.e. from December, 1998 to December, 2001. Factual Matrix of the case 2. The respondent is a manufacturer of Tractor. Under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 enacted under Section 30 of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the respondent was liable to make the payment of Automobile Cess. 3. As the aforesaid Automobile Cess was not paid for different periods, different notices were given. The details of the show-cause notices, the period, the number of tractors and Automobile Cess payable are as under :- Sl No. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE & DATE PERIOD QTY. NO OF TRACTOR AUTOMOBILE CESS PAYABLE 1. SCN/Telco-1/12/99/1018 dated 02.07.99 December 98 to April, 99 117 Nos. Rs. 86,360.75 2. SCN/23/Telco-1/99/1632 dated 03.11.1999 May, 99 to September, 99 203 Nos. Rs.1,53,188.64 3. SCN/Telco-1/5-11A/2000/400 dated 04.04.2000 October, 99 to February, 2000 201 Nos. Rs.1,61,046.03 4. SCN/Telco-1/14-11A/2000/965 dated 25.08.2000 March, 2000 to July, 2000 440 Nos. Rs.3,41,807.71 5. SCN/Telco-1/5-11A/2001/291 dated 19.03.2001 August 2000 to February, 2001 596 Nos. Rs. 4,76,355.00 6. SCN/Telco-1/1/2002/71 dated 22.01.2002 March 2001 to June, 2001 268 Nos. Rs.2,21,406.60 7. SCN/Telco-1/1/2002/73 dated 22.01.2002 July 2001 to December, 2001 424 Nos. Rs.3,55,879.78 4. Rs.1,61,046.03 4. SCN/Telco-1/14-11A/2000/965 dated 25.08.2000 March, 2000 to July, 2000 440 Nos. Rs.3,41,807.71 5. SCN/Telco-1/5-11A/2001/291 dated 19.03.2001 August 2000 to February, 2001 596 Nos. Rs. 4,76,355.00 6. SCN/Telco-1/1/2002/71 dated 22.01.2002 March 2001 to June, 2001 268 Nos. Rs.2,21,406.60 7. SCN/Telco-1/1/2002/73 dated 22.01.2002 July 2001 to December, 2001 424 Nos. Rs.3,55,879.78 4. These Notices were replied to by the respondent assessee and ultimately adjudication process started and the Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur and vide said order dated 30/31st October, 2001 it has been held by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur that respondent- assessee was liable to make the payment of Automobile Cess and penalty was also imposed upon the assessee under Rule 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 of equal amount. 5. It further appears from the facts of the cases that after determination of the liability of Automobile Cess the same has been paid by the respondent-assessee on 7th January, 2002, 8th January, 2002 and 5th February, 2002. The respondent-assessee challenged the Order-in-Original dated 30th /31st October, 2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Patna who confirmed the Order-in-Original. Thus, Order-in-Appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Patna on 26th March, 2003. Thus, the penalty imposed under Rule 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules of 1944 for non-payment of Automobile Cess was confirmed in Order-in-Appeal. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata, mainly on the ground that neither there is provision for penalty under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 nor there is any provision for penalty under the parent Act, i.e. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and hence penalty cannot be imposed and levied under Section 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules of 1944 and the respondent-Assessee has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CCE v. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2003) 158 ELT 545 (SC)= (2004) 1 SCC 597 and has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KHEMKA AND CO. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (1975) 2 SCC 22 and the CESTAT, Kolkata allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent-assessee and set aside the penalty imposed by the present appellant in Order-in-Original, which was confirmed in Order-in-Appeal, as there was no specific penalty provision. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (1975) 2 SCC 22 and the CESTAT, Kolkata allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent-assessee and set aside the penalty imposed by the present appellant in Order-in-Original, which was confirmed in Order-in-Appeal, as there was no specific penalty provision. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata these appeals have been preferred by the appellant. Argument canvassed by the counsel appearing for the appellant : 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that no error has been committed by the appellant in imposing the penalty under Section 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 because under Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder are applicable to the levy and collection of Automobile Cess. Thus, if there is non-payment of Automobile Cess under Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 enacted under Section 30 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules are applicable. There is no need for separate mentioning of penalty under Automobile Cess Rules. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the CESTAT, Kolkata while allowing the appeals preferred by the respondent. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CCE v. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2003) 158 ELT 545 (SC)= (2004) 1 SCC 597 is not applicable to the present case because that was a case of Additional Duty and therefore, further payment of Additional Duty was not allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas, in the facts of the present case, Automobile Cess is not at all Additional duty and therefore, non-payment of Automobile Cess will be covered by the Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 and therefore, provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable to the facts of the present case, i.e. to the non payment of Automobile Cess and once the Central Excise Act and the Rules are made applicable both interest as well as penalty is leviable under Section 11 AA and under rule 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the CESTAT, Kolkata and hence the order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata allowing the appeals of the respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that if penalty is not imposed for non-payment of the Automobile Cess then there will be no effective levy of the Automobile Cess and such matters cannot be left at the mercy of the assessee. Whenever any cess is not paid, especially under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, looking to Rule 3 thereof, all the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules are applicable, for both payment of interest and payment of penalty and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the CESTAT, Kolkata deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P. No. 51753 of 2013 and 38767-69/2014 dated 12th June, 2015 and has submitted on the basis of the aforesaid decisions that penalty imposed upon the assessee under Rule 173 (Q) of the Rule of 1944 is absolutely in consonance with Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondent : 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that no error has been committed by the CESTAT, Kolkata in allowing the appeals preferred by the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the penalty is not incidental to the assessment nor it is a mere consequence of the assessment. Penalty is an addition to the tax or is an addition to the liability and therefore, there must be a provision for penalty and there is no provision of penalty under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 nor under the Parental Act, i.e. under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and therefore, penalty cannot be imposed upon the respondent. There must be a specific provision for imposition of the penalty. 10. There must be a specific provision for imposition of the penalty. 10. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 is only for the purpose of following the procedure of the Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder for the levy and collection of the Cess, but so far as the penalty is concerned there bound to be specific provision under the rules or under the parental Act and if there is no specific provision for imposition of penalty, the same can not be imposed by the appellant under Rule 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 11. Counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in KHEMKA AND CO. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (1975) 2 SCC 22 as well as the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in BARNAGORE JUTE FACTORY CO. vs. INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE reported in (2004) 1 SCC 597 , Ed.-sic- (1992)1 SCC 401 . On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that neither the Automobile Cess Rules nor the parental Act of 1951 provides for penalty and hence, penalty can not be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise also, after the adjudication of the liability of the respondent assessee vide order-in-original dated 30/31st October, 2001 the payment of Automobile Cess has already been made on 7th, 8th January, 2001 and on 5th February, 2001, which is within the period of three months from the date of adjudication and hence any interest is also not leviable under Section 11 AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the CESTAT, Kolkata while allowing the appeals of the respondent and therefore, these appeals preferred by the appellants may not be entertained by this court. REASONS: 12. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the CESTAT, Kolkata while allowing the appeals of the respondent and therefore, these appeals preferred by the appellants may not be entertained by this court. REASONS: 12. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain these tax appeals mainly for the following grounds :- (I) While arguing this Tax appeal the following provisions of law has been read and re-read and therefore, for ready reference they are quoted as under :- (a) Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, enacted under Section 30 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 reads as under :- “3. Application of Central Excises and Salt Act and the rules made thereunder.- Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder including those relating to refund of duty, shall, so far as may, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the cess as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duty of excise on manufacture of automobiles under the Act and the Rules.” (Emphasis supplied) (b) Relevant part of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable during the relevant period reads as under: “11AA. Interest on delayed payment of duty.-(1) 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 determination, he shall pay, in addition to the duty, interest at such rate not below ten per cent, and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. Per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette 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:............................................... Per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette 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:............................................... (Emphasis supplied) (c) Rule 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 reads as under :- “Rule [173 Q. Confiscation and penalty.- (1) If any manufacturer, producer or [registered person] of a warehouse,- (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the manufacturer, producer or [registered person] of the warehouse, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or *** [clause (b), or clause(bb) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................” (II) The respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of tractor. Automobile Cess was not paid and therefore, for different period notices were issued. In all the aforesaid appeals the periods involved are from December, 1998 to December, 2001. Thereafter, Order-in-Original was passed on 30/31st October, 2001 by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, who directed for payment of Automobile Cess and penalty under 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This Automobile Cess was paid by the respondent on 7th January, 8th January and 5th February, 2002, but the imposition of penalty was under challenge by way of appeals preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), (Central Excise), Patna, who decided the appeals vide order dated 26th March, 2003. Order-in-Original was confirmed in the appeals and therefore, further appeals were preferred before the CESTAT, Kolkata, who allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and the penalty imposed by the present appellant was quashed and set aside and therefore, the Department has preferred the present appeals. Order-in-Original was confirmed in the appeals and therefore, further appeals were preferred before the CESTAT, Kolkata, who allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and the penalty imposed by the present appellant was quashed and set aside and therefore, the Department has preferred the present appeals. (III) Looking to Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, this appellant has imposed penalty under Rule 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules of 1944, but, in fact there is neither provision for penalty under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 nor under the parental Act, i.e. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and therefore, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no need for specific provision of penalty under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. Rule 3 of the Automobile Rules, 1984 partakes that the provisions of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable in relation to levy and calculation of the Cess under the Automobile Cess Rules and therefore, automatically the provision for penalty is also applicable. We are not in agreement with this contention mainly looking to paragraph 24-25, 26 and 28 of the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in KHEMKA AND CO. v. STATE MAHARASHTRA reported in (1975) 2 SCC Page No. 30, which read as under:- “24. The Income Tax Act, 1961 imposes penalty under Sections 270 and 271. These sections in the Income Tax Act provide for imposition of penalty on contumacious or fraudulent assessee. Penalty is in addition to income tax, if any, determined as payable by the assessee. Tax and penalty like tax and interest are distinct and different concepts under the Indian Income Tax Act. The word “assessment” could cover penalty proceedings if it is used to denote the whole procedure for imposing liability on the taxpayer as happened in Abraham's case (supra). Penalty is within assessment proceedings just as tax is within assessment proceedings when the relevant Act by substantive charging provision levies tax as well as penalty. 25. Penalty is not merely sanction. It is not merely adjunct to assessment. It is not merely consequential to assessment. It is not merely machinery. Penalty is in addition to tax and is a liability under the Act. Reference may be made to Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 where penalty is provided for concealment of income. 25. Penalty is not merely sanction. It is not merely adjunct to assessment. It is not merely consequential to assessment. It is not merely machinery. Penalty is in addition to tax and is a liability under the Act. Reference may be made to Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 where penalty is provided for concealment of income. Penalty is in addition to the amount of income-tax. This Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India said that penalty is not a continuation of assessment proceedings and that penalty partakes of the character of additional tax. 26. The Federal Court in Chatturam v. C.I.T., Bihar said that liability does not depend on assessment. There must be a charging section to create liability. There must be first a liability created by the Act. Second, the Act must provide for assessment. Third, the Act must provide for enforcement of the taxing provisions. The mere fact that there is machinery for assessment, collection and enforcement of tax and penalty in the State Act does not mean that the provision for penalty in the State Act is treated as penalty under the Central Act. The meaning of penalty under the Central Act cannot be enlarged by the provisions of machinery of the State Act incorporated for working out the Central Act. 28. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the provisions in the State Act imposing penalty for non-payment of income-tax within the prescribed time is not attracted to impose penalty on dealers under the Central Act in respect of tax and penalty payable under the Central Act. There is no lack of sanction for payment of tax. Any dealer who would not comply with the provisions for payment of tax would be subjected to recovery proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act. A penalty is a statutory liability. The Central Act contains specific provisions for penalty. Those are the only provisions for penalty available against the dealers under the Central Act. Each State Sales Tax Act contains provisions for penalties. These provisions in some cases are also for failure to submit return or failure to register. It is rightly said that those provisions cannot apply to dealers under the Central Act because the Central Act makes similar provisions. Each State Sales Tax Act contains provisions for penalties. These provisions in some cases are also for failure to submit return or failure to register. It is rightly said that those provisions cannot apply to dealers under the Central Act because the Central Act makes similar provisions. The Central Act is a self-contained code which by charging section creates liability for tax and which by other sections creates a liability for penalty and imposes penalty. Section 9(2) of the Central Act creates the State authorities as agencies to carry out the assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of tax and penalty payable by a dealer under the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, tax and penalty like tax and interest are distinct and different. Penalty is neither merely incidental to the assessment nor it is merely consequent to the assessment. In fact, penalty is an addition to the tax and addition to the liability. Penalty is not a continuation of the assessment proceeding. In fact, penalty is a statutory liability. For imposing penalty, there bound to be provision for penalty under the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, but, in fact, looking to Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, there is no such provision for imposition of penalty nor there is any provision of penalty under the parental Act, i.e. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and hence penalty can not be imposed under Section 173 (Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (IV) There is already a provision for the payment of interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as was prevailing at the relevant time if the duty is not paid within a period of three months after the assessment the interest, minimum at the rate of 10 % and maximum at the rate of 36%. As stated herein above, after adjudication of the liability after order dated 30/31 October, 2001, i.e. after order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur. Respondent- assessee has already paid Automobile Cess on 7th January, 2002, 8th January, 2002 and on 5th February, 2002. (V) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. ORIENT FABRICS (P) LTD. reported in (2004)1 SCC 597 in paragraph No. 5, 6 and 10 as under :- “5. Respondent- assessee has already paid Automobile Cess on 7th January, 2002, 8th January, 2002 and on 5th February, 2002. (V) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. ORIENT FABRICS (P) LTD. reported in (2004)1 SCC 597 in paragraph No. 5, 6 and 10 as under :- “5. In order to appreciate the issue, it is relevant to set out sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, as applicable in this matter and which runs as under :- “3. Levy and collection of additional duties.- (1)-(2) *** (3) The provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty, shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the additional duties as they apply in relation to the levy and collection the duties of excise on the goods specified in sub-section (1).” 6. A perusal of the said provision shows that the breach of the provision of the Act has not been made penal or an offence and no power has been given to confiscate the goods. It only provides for application of the procedural provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. It is no longer res integra that when the breach of the provision of the Act is penal in nature or a penalty is imposed by way of additional tax, the constitutional mandate requires a clear authority of law for imposition for the same. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.The authority has to be specific and explicit and expressly provided. The Act created liability for additional duty for excise, but created no liability for any penalty. That being so, the confiscation proceedings against the respondents were unwarranted and without authority of law. 10. In Khemka & Co. (Agencies) (P) Ltd. This Court categorically laid down paras 25 and 26, which run as under: (SCCp.31) “25. Penalty is not merely sanction. It is not merely adjunct to assessment. It is not merely consequential to assessment. It is not merely machinery. Penalty is in addition to tax and is a liability under the Act. 10. In Khemka & Co. (Agencies) (P) Ltd. This Court categorically laid down paras 25 and 26, which run as under: (SCCp.31) “25. Penalty is not merely sanction. It is not merely adjunct to assessment. It is not merely consequential to assessment. It is not merely machinery. Penalty is in addition to tax and is a liability under the Act. Reference may be made to Section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 where penalty is provided for concealment of income. Penalty is in addition to the amount of income tax. This Court in Jain Bros. v. Union of India said that penalty is not a continuation of assessment proceedings and that penalty partakes of the character of additional tax. 26. The Federal Court I Chatturam v. CIT said that liability does not depend on assessment. There must be charging Section to create liability. There must be first a liability created by the Act. Second, the Act must provide for assessment. Third, the Act must provide for enforcement of the taxing provisions. The mere fact that there is machinery for assessment, collection and enforcement of tax and penalty in the State Act does not mean that the provision for penalty in the State Act is treated as penalty under the Central Act. The meaning of penalty under the Central Act cannot be enlarged by the provisions of machinery of the State Act incorporated for working out the Central Act.” (Emphasis supplied) (VI) In view of the aforesaid decision also penalty cannot be imposed without there being specific provision for the penalty despite Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules. 1984. Rule 3 of the Rule of 1984 cannot be operated for imposition of penalty because penalty partakes the character of additional tax. Penalty is not incidental to the process of assessment. It is in fact additional statutory liability and unless there is specific provision for penalty, the same cannot be inferred from Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rule, 1984. (VII) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD v. STATE OF ORISSA reported in 1962(2) SCC 627 in paragraph No. 8 as under :- “8. Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer-Section 9(1) read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Act. (VII) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD v. STATE OF ORISSA reported in 1962(2) SCC 627 in paragraph No. 8 as under :- “8. Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer-Section 9(1) read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is a result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the Company in failing to register the Company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the Company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out.” (Emphasis supplied) (VIII) Looking to Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, there is no provision for penalty at all envisaged under this Rule and as stated herein above, penalty partakes the character of additional tax, looking to the Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax can be levied or collected except authority of the law. Such authority has to be specific and explicit in the Acts or the Rules. The Automobile Cess Rules creates liability for the payment of automobile cess, but, it creates no liability for any penalty and hence any penalty cannot be levied under Section 173 (Q) of the The Central Excise Act, 1944. 13. Such authority has to be specific and explicit in the Acts or the Rules. The Automobile Cess Rules creates liability for the payment of automobile cess, but, it creates no liability for any penalty and hence any penalty cannot be levied under Section 173 (Q) of the The Central Excise Act, 1944. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the CESTAT, Kolkata in deciding appeal preferred by the respondent vide order dated 20th February, 2007. 14. There is no substance in these Tax Appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.