ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. Arguing on the application for rectification of the Tribunal’s final order No. E/319-321/94-B1, dated 29-6-1994, Id. Consultant Sh. Rekhi pointed out that there is some ambiguity in the wording of para 34 setting out the majority order. Reference was made to the order of Member (Judicial) directing the department to re-determine the duty payable by the party from 25-12-1985 till the end of 1985 on getting required information in this regard from the party, and, that the department is entitled to recover this amount. Party was also directed to co-operate with the department in furnishing relevant data to enable department in arriving at the exact figure. Member (Technical), Sh. P.C. Jain had also observed in para 22.2 of his order that subject to decision on classification of each of the products, the demand for the period 1-3-1975 to 22-1-1976 and 2-8-1980 to 26-7-1985 is not time-barred and that the quantum of demand is to be determined after issuing show cause notice and deciding the same in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Id. Consultant submitted that the content of the orders of both the Members, as above, directing the quantification of the demand has not been brought out in para 34 of the majority order as it stands at present, which is as follows:
“It is also held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the demand for the period 1-3-1975 to 25-11-1975 and from 2-8-1980 to 26-7-1985 is valid and is not time-barred.” Therefore, it was pleaded that the error which is apparent on the face of tht record should be rectified.
2. Shri S. Arora, Id. D.R., however, contended that the majority order, as in para 34 follows, the logic of the orders of the two Members on the aspect o: limitation and quantification of demand. There is no need for any rectification submitted the Id. D.R.
3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both th( sides, we are inclined to agree with the Id. D.R. that there is no incongruitj between the conclusions in the individual orders and the wording of th” majority order in para 34. The para is clear enough to set out the majority ordei holding that the demand is not hit by limitation and in that sense the demanc “is valid”. The so-called ambiguity perceived therein by the applicants is realij not there. However, to put matters beyond doubt, we are inclined to amplifj para 34 of the final order of the Tribunal as follows :
In the final order of the Tribunal No. E/319-321/94-B1, dated 29-6-199^ in para 34 thereof, the following words are added at the end :
“and the quantum of the demand should be re-determined as per the directions in this regard contained hereinabove after issue of show cause notice in accordance with the principles of natural justice.”
4. The application is disposed of in the above terms.