https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106437 Omission to record a finding on the limitation plea under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a mistake apparent from the record because limitation directly affects the period for which duty can be demanded. The earlier remand had directed reworking of duty and Modvat set-off, but had not expressly dealt with the appellant's limitation contention. The order was therefore rectified to make clear that the limitation issue would remain open and be decided by the lower authority in the de novo proceedings while reworking the demand. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:41:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106437 Omission to record a finding on the limitation plea under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a mistake apparent from the record because limitation directly affects the period for which duty can be demanded. The earlier remand had directed reworking of duty and Modvat set-off, but had not expressly dealt with the appellant's limitation contention. The order was therefore rectified to make clear that the limitation issue would remain open and be decided by the lower authority in the de novo proceedings while reworking the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106437