RAJIV SHAKDHER,J. - (1.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 10-5-2011, [2012 (277) E.L.T. 253 (Tribunal)] passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'). 1. 1. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, whereby, it reversed, both the Order-in-original dated 31-10-2000 and the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 7-11-2003. Both these orders were passed in favour of the assessee. 1. 2 Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
(2.) This appeal was admitted on 1-11-2011, when the following question of law was framed for consideration by this Court : "Whether the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the cross-objection filed by the appellant raising the question of limitation for the Revenue to make a demand?"
(3.) In order to adjudicate upon the appeal, the following broad facts, are required to be noticed. 3. 1 The assessee, at the relevant point in time, manufactured chemicals for use in printing and photographic industry. In respect of the sale of its goods, it used the brand name "Micro", which was, admittedly, also the brand name of another family/sister concern, by the name, Micro Plates Private Limited (in short, "MPPL"). As would be evident from the cause title, the assessee's name is Micro Chem Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. (in short, "MCPPL"). 3. 2 Since, the assessee had been claiming exemption from excise duty, as it was a Small Scale Industrial Unit (in short, "SSI Unit"), it did not, as it appears, get itself registered with the Central Excise Authorities. The assessee's claim is that, since, its clearances were, always, below the sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, there is no need to register itself with the Central Excise Authorities. 3. 3 The record shows that the Central Excise Authorities got wind of the fact that the assessee had been clearing its goods under the brand name "Micro", which also the brand name that was being used by its family/sister concern, i.e., MPPL. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 8-11-2000 (in short, the "SCN") was served on the assessee. 3. 4 Via the said SCN, it was proposed to deny the assessee, the exemption from excise duty, it enjoyed being an SSI Unit, by virtue of the various Notifications, issued from time to time, i.e., Notification No. 7/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997; Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997; Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998; Notification No. 8/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999 and Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 (hereafter collectively referred to as 'Notifications'). Accordingly, the SCN proposed the following : (i) to levy duty, in the sum of Rs. 4,19,575/-, for the period, spanning between June, 1997 and 25-10-2000 (ii) to levy penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, 'the 1944 Act'). 3. 5. In respect of the said SCN, a reply dated 5-1-2001 was filed by the assessee, pursuant to which, the Order-in-Original dated 31-10-2000 (sic 31-10-2001), was passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 3. 6. As indicated at the outset, the Order-in-Original, was in favour of the assessee, and, hence, proceedings initiated via the aforementioned SCN were dropped. 3. 7 The Revenue, being aggrieved, had preferred an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31-10-2001. The appeal met with the same fate. The First Appellate Authority, i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide order dated 7-11-2003, sustained the Order-in-Original and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 3. 8. The Revenue did not stop there and, accordingly, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. To be noted, the assessee also preferred cross objections with the Tribunal raising the issue of limitation. 3. 9. As alluded to above, the Tribunal reversed the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority.;