Limitation under Rule 57-I and Section 11A barred the excise demand, and the omitted plea was rectified.

Limitation under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 was treated as decisive where no misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty was established. On that basis, the demand was held to be time-barred. The Tribunal also accepted that the limitation plea had been raised but omitted from the earlier order because related appeals were heard together and arguments were adopted in both matters. That omission was treated as an error apparent on the record, and the order was rectified to reflect the limitation finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was hit by limitation and whether the omission to record the limitation plea in the Tribunal's earlier order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The application showed that the limitation plea had been raised in the appeal and during hearing, but was not reflected in the order because the connected appeals were heard together and the arguments were adopted in both matters. On the merits of limitation, the Tribunal noted that Rule 57-I was to be read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, and found no misstatement, suppression, or intention to evade payment of duty. In those circumstances, the demand could not survive limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was accepted, and the omission in the earlier order was rectified by incorporating the finding that the demand was time-barred.

---