Incorrect notification cannot be replaced by corrigendum; demand and penalty require reconsideration on the correct legal basis.

A corrigendum cannot substitute one independently worded notification for another; it may cure only clerical or typographical errors. Where an adjudication is based on an incorrect notification, the resulting demand and penalty cannot be sustained on that basis and the matter must be reconsidered on the correct legal foundation. A specific plea of limitation or time bar should also be re-examined on remand after hearing the parties. The matter was sent back for de novo adjudication on the applicable notification and limitation, without any finding on the underlying merits of manufacture or duty liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained when the adjudicating authority relied on an incorrect notification and attempted to correct it by corrigendum; and (ii) whether the plea of limitation and time bar required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained when the adjudicating authority relied on an incorrect notification and attempted to correct it by corrigendum.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the basis of a notification different from the one actually applicable for the period in dispute. The correction attempted through corrigendum could not substitute one independently worded notification for another, since a corrigendum may cure only clerical or typographical mistakes. The authority below therefore did not properly address the notification applicable to the case and the order was vitiated on that account.

Conclusion: The order could not be sustained on this issue and was set aside for fresh consideration on the correct notification.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of limitation and time bar required reconsideration.

Analysis: The appellants had raised a specific plea that the demand was barred by time. Since the matter was being remanded for reconsideration on the notification issue, the question of limitation also required fresh adjudication after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The limitation plea was left for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority on remand.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on merits, including the applicability of the correct notification and the plea of limitation, and no finding was recorded on the substantive merits of manufacture or duty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrigendum cannot be used to replace one independently worded notification with another, and where the adjudication rests on an incorrect notification, the order is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision on the correct legal basis.

---