Limitation under Central Excise law remained open in de novo proceedings after rectification of the remand order.

Omission to record a finding on the limitation plea under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a mistake apparent from the record because limitation directly affects the period for which duty can be demanded. The earlier remand had directed reworking of duty and Modvat set-off, but had not expressly dealt with the appellant's limitation contention. The order was therefore rectified to make clear that the limitation issue would remain open and be decided by the lower authority in the de novo proceedings while reworking the demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier final order required rectification to record that the question of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was left open for decision in the de novo proceedings.

Analysis: The Bench noted that its earlier remand order directed reworking of duty and Modvat set-off, but did not expressly deal with the appellant's limitation plea. Since limitation affects the period for which duty can be demanded, omission to record a finding on that issue was treated as a mistake apparent from the record. The order was therefore amended so that the limitation question would be determined by the lower authority while reworking the demand in the remand proceedings.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed and the earlier order was amended to leave the limitation issue open for adjudication in the de novo proceedings.

---