ORDER 1. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE CASE OF THE H RESPONDENTS THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THEM BY THE DEPARTMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11-A OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT. IT ALSO HELD THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION NO. 178/1988. IN THESE APPEALS, IF THE DEPARTMENT FAILS IN ITS CONTENTION AS TO ITS RIGHT TO INVOKE SECTION 11-A OF THE ACT THEN THESE APPEALS SHOULD FAIL ON THAT GROUND ALONE. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE CONSIDERING THIS QUESTION, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED FROM THE ENTRIES IN THE STATUTORY REGISTERS LIKE RG-I REGISTER, RT-12 RETURNS AND RT-5 RETURNS THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS IN THE KNOW OF THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENTS. THIS IS A QUESTION OF FACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WHATSOEVER TO DISAGREE WITH THIS FINDING OF THE B TRIBUNAL. A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED THIS FINDING. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE APPEALS. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF OURS THERE IS NO NEED TO GO INTO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN THESE APPEALS. 3. FOR THE SAID REASONS THESE APPEALS FAIL AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED.