Limitation under excise law must be addressed in appeal before differential duty demand is sustained or remitted.

An appellate order was found defective because it did not consider the plea that limitation under section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act barred invocation for the relevant period in a differential duty demand. The omitted limitation issue was treated as a material jurisdictional and procedural ground raised in appeal, requiring a finding by the appellate authority. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order was vitiated for failing to consider the plea of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act in relation to the demand for differential duty.

Analysis: The writ petition was confined to a jurisdictional and procedural defect in the appellate order. The material point overlooked was the plea that section 11A could not be invoked for the relevant period, and the appellate authority had not rendered any finding on that question. Since the omission went to an important issue raised in appeal, the order was treated as defective to that extent.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---