Rectification power limited to patent mistakes; it cannot be used to revisit merits, facts, or prior reasoning.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to correcting an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot operate as a disguised review. Non-consideration of an earlier judgment is not, by itself, a rectifiable error where the Tribunal has already addressed the statutory provisions and substance of the submission. A challenge to withdrawal of permission also failed because the relevant facts had not been disclosed, and a plea that those facts were already supplied amounted only to a reappraisal of evidence, which is outside rectification. The petition was therefore unsustainable in its entirety.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-consideration of an earlier judgment could be treated as a mistake apparent from the record in a rectification application; (ii) whether the withdrawal of permission by the Assistant Commissioner could be challenged in rectification when the relevant facts were not disclosed; (iii) whether the contention that the factual details had already been supplied could be examined in a rectification proceeding.

Issue (i): whether non-consideration of an earlier judgment could be treated as a mistake apparent from the record in a rectification application.

Analysis: A rectification application under Section 35C(2) is confined to correcting an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used as a disguised review. Failure to notice an earlier decision, by itself, does not constitute a rectifiable mistake where the Tribunal has already dealt with the statutory provisions and the substance of the submission in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The contention was not a ground for rectification.

Issue (ii): whether the withdrawal of permission by the Assistant Commissioner could be challenged in rectification when the relevant facts were not disclosed.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded that permission had been sought without disclosing that the moulds and dies had already been sent out on payment of duty. On that basis, the Tribunal held that no fault could be found with the Assistant Commissioner for withdrawing the permission after the true facts came to light.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected and no rectifiable error was shown.

Issue (iii): whether the contention that the factual details had already been supplied could be examined in a rectification proceeding.

Analysis: The plea was only a dispute with the Tribunal's appreciation of facts and findings. Such a challenge seeks reappraisal of the record, which is outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 35C(2).

Conclusion: The contention was not maintainable in rectification.

Final Conclusion: The rectification petition failed in its entirety, as no mistake apparent from the record was shown and the application sought impermissible reconsideration of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue merits, revisit factual findings, or seek review of an order.

---