Rule 57-I limitation stands apart from Section 11A, and the Tribunal order was reopened to align with Supreme Court law.

Rule 57-I demands were held to operate independently of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the limitation under Section 11A was therefore inapplicable to such proceedings before amendment. A prior Tribunal direction to examine the normal period of limitation was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's binding ruling, so the rectification application was allowed and the matter was required to be reconsidered in line with that law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application was to be allowed on the ground that the earlier Tribunal order, which applied the normal period of limitation to a demand under Rule 57-I, was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply to such proceedings.

Analysis: The application pointed out that the Supreme Court had held that, prior to its amendment, Rule 57-I operated independently of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that the limitation provisions under Section 11A were therefore not applicable to demands under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The earlier Tribunal order had remanded the matter by directing consideration of the normal period of limitation, which was inconsistent with the binding law declared by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed, and the earlier order was treated as requiring reconsideration in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.

---