ORDER : 1. Aggrieved against the final order Nos. A/1139- 142/WZB/2005/CIII dated 15.07.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal Nos.E/530, 531, 532 and 533/04-Mum., revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The point involved in this case is regarding clubbing and clandestine removal. The clubbing is proposed in the case of following four units: "(i) M/s. Sotex - a proprietary unit of Shri M.M.Majithia, constituted in 1991 and registered as SSI unit by District Industries Central since 1991; (ii) M/s. Unity, a partnership concern of Shri V.V. Rajani and Shri Shantilal Somani. Constituted in 1988 and registered as SSI unit by District Industries Centre in 1988; (iii) M/s. Sonic a proprietary unit of Mrs. Anilaben Majithia, wife of Shri M.M.Majithia, constituted in 1989 and exempt from licensing; and (iv) M/s. Stelex came into being as a proprietary concern of Shri M.M. Majithia in Sept. 1993. It was sold to Krishna Textile Works who used the same till Shri Majithia took over the same on monthly basis from 1.7.1997 to 31.10.1997." 3. The period of demand is from 1993-94 to October, 1997. The units were visited by the officers of the excise department on 15th October, 1997 and pursuant to the enquiries made and statements recorded of the supervisors and Shri Majithia, a case was made out and accordingly a show cause notice dated 7.4.1998 was issued. The notice proposed that M/s. Sotex was the main unit and that other units were only name sake and were declared to be separate unit on papers. The notice relied upon: (i) common procurement of raw material; (ii) some workers being common; (iii) main raw material viz. SS coils being slitted at M/s. Sotex or at Precision Slitters, Amod. 4. Accordingly, a demand of Rs. 1,45,29,754/- for the period 1993-94 to October, 1997 was raised. Extended period of limitation was invoked and it was proposed to levy penalty as well. 5. All units manufacture branded as well as non-branded SS watch straps. SSI exemption under relevant notification was available only to unbranded straps and 85% of the production is that of branded straps which had been cleared on payment of duty by respective units. Extended period of limitation was invoked and it was proposed to levy penalty as well. 5. All units manufacture branded as well as non-branded SS watch straps. SSI exemption under relevant notification was available only to unbranded straps and 85% of the production is that of branded straps which had been cleared on payment of duty by respective units. These units admittedly have full range of machinery for manufacture of watch straps as is evident from the show cause notice as well as from the order- in-original. 6. Respondents produced audited accounts which were subject to statutory audit and income tax and other supporting documents to show that: "(a) Units are geographically apart, having their funding and financial arrangement; (b) They hold separate central excise registration, SSI registration and are assessed to income tax, sales tax and central excise separately. (c) They are purchasing raw material independently and are also selling their goods to various purchasers independently. (d) They are maintaining books of accounts separately for purchase and sale of finished goods. (e) They are obtaining separate loans and credits from various banks; (f) They have filed separate classification lists, price lists, RT 12 returns which have been regularly assessed by the department. (g) They are periodically visited by central excise range staff, internal audit parties, AG audit party etc.; (h) They are subjected to tax audit under Section 44 of the Income Tax Act and reports are being submitted to Income tax department regularly certified by Chartered Accountant. (i) They are holding separate licences under the Factories Act. (j) They have their own separate supervisors and own separate labour." 7. The Tribunal after discussing the material on record came to a finding that all these units were separate and had no interconnectivity for being clubbed. A further finding was recorded that there was no clandestine removal. On the question of extended period of limitation, Tribunal came to a finding that all these facts were known to the department which is evident from the show cause notice dated 8.3.1994. Since revenue already had the knowledge of all these facts in the year 1994, the present notice issued in the year 1998 was beyond the period of limitation. 8. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on the first point is a finding of fact which does not call for any interference. 9. We have perused the show cause notice dated 8.3.1994. 8. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on the first point is a finding of fact which does not call for any interference. 9. We have perused the show cause notice dated 8.3.1994. It is evident from the reading of the same that the facts were already in the knowledge of the revenue. In the circumstances, the revenue cannot invoke the extended period of limitation under section 11A of the Act. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs.