( 1 ) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner, we are of opinion that the following three grounds arise for decision by this Court : 1. Whether there has been miscarriage of justice vide Tribunals said order inasmuch as while it has been held that the process carried out by the Appellant did not come within the scope of Rule 173h of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as it amounted to manufacture of the pistons in question, the Tribunal at the same time has held that the demand being beyond 6 months from the relevant date was barred by limitation ? ( 2 ) WHETHER once contravention of Rule 173h is established then the period of limitation should be 5 years and not 6 months from the date of payment of duty? It is in view of the fact that under rule 173h no time limit is fixed within which duty paid goods could be returned to the factory and within which such duty paid goods could be removed from the factory after reprocessing. ( 3 ) WHETHER if the Tribunals view is held to be correct then no duty could be demanded in this case of any contravention under Rule 173h if duty paid goods are returned after 6 months from the date of payment of duty? Such a situation will obviously be not tenable. 2. Consequently, we direct the Tribunal to set out the material facts necessary to decide the aforesaid three questions. .