Limitation bars departmental demand where the Revenue failed to challenge the unassailed finding, leaving merits irrelevant.

The Tribunal held that a departmental appeal could not be examined on merits where the Revenue had not challenged the lower appellate authority's finding on limitation. It could not reopen an unassailed limitation conclusion or go beyond the grounds urged, and the intact limitation finding meant that merits would not change the result. The demand was also barred because no recovery could be made beyond the prescribed six-month period under Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The Department's appeal was therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal could be examined on merits when the finding of the lower appellate authority on limitation was not challenged, and whether the demand could survive beyond the period of limitation.

Analysis: The finding on limitation had not been assailed by the Revenue in the appeal. In such circumstances, the Tribunal could not travel beyond the grounds urged and reopen an unchallenged conclusion on limitation. Since the relief before the lower appellate authority rested on both merits and limitation, and the limitation finding remained intact, adjudication on merits would not alter the result. The limitation issue was also supported by the view that no demand could be raised beyond the prescribed six-month period under Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion: The appeal of the Department was not sustainable and was dismissed in favour of the assessee.

---