Retrospective amendment to Central Excise limitation law did not support rectification where disclosure defeated any allegation of suppression.

The retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act did not justify rectification of the final order because the order had already found that the assessee disclosed availment in the classification list, negating any allegation of suppression. Since the extended limitation period applies only when suppression, misstatement, or similar conduct is established, the Revenue could not rely on the amendment to reopen that factual finding. No apparent mistake was shown in the earlier order, so the rectification application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether rectification of the final order was warranted on the basis of the retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and the plea that demand could be raised for the past period.

Analysis: The retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not assist the Revenue, because the earlier final order had already recorded a factual finding that the assessee had specifically disclosed availment in the classification list and, therefore, suppression could not be alleged. The extended period under Section 11A becomes available only where suppression, misstatement, or similar conduct is established, and no apparent mistake was shown in that factual finding.

Conclusion: The application for rectification was not maintainable and was rejected.

---