Extended limitation challenge cannot survive after demand concession; penalty relief remains available where the credit issue was genuinely debatable.

Where an appellant concedes the CENVAT credit demand and interest and seeks only deletion of penalty, a challenge to the extended limitation period does not survive independently because it concerns the sustainability of the conceded demand. The notes state that the Tribunal granted the only live relief by setting aside penalty, as the credit issue was highly debatable during the relevant period and no mala fides were attributable to the appellant. Its failure to adjudicate limitation therefore was not an error apparent on the record capable of rectification, and rejection of the rectification application was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the record by not adjudicating the challenge to invocation of the extended period of limitation while deciding the appeal.

Analysis: Before the Tribunal, the appellant expressly did not contest the CENVAT credit demand or interest and confined its prayer to deletion of penalty. A limitation challenge concerns the sustainability of the demand and could not survive independently after the demand was conceded. The Tribunal granted the only live relief by setting aside penalty, as the credit issue was highly debatable during the relevant period and no mala fides were attributable to the appellant. Its omission to rule on limitation therefore did not constitute a mistake apparent on the record capable of rectification.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in not deciding the extended-limitation plea, and rejection of the rectification application disclosed no infirmity.

---