Additional evidence and limitation under Central Excise Rules led to remand for fresh adjudication of the time-bar plea.

Additional correspondence produced before the Tribunal was admitted because it was relevant to whether the department had knowledge of the units' ownership and activities, a directly affecting the applicability of the larger limitation period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. Since those letters had not been examined by the lower authorities, their consideration was necessary for proper determination of the time-bar plea. The matter was therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after taking the documents on record, including reconsideration of limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional correspondence produced before the Tribunal could be taken on record and whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of the plea of time bar under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The additional letters exchanged between the parties were relevant to the question whether the department had knowledge of the ownership and activities of the units, which bore directly on the applicability of the larger limitation period. As these documents had not been considered by the lower authorities, their reception was necessary to enable proper adjudication of the limitation issue. The Tribunal therefore found it appropriate to send the matter back for a fresh decision after taking those documents into account.

Conclusion: The additional documents were taken on record and the matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, including on the question of time bar.

---