Rectification jurisdiction is limited to obvious record errors and cannot be used to reopen merits or re-argue disputed issues.

Rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to patent, obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek review or re-argument on facts or law. Where the grievance requires reconsideration of evidence, fresh argument, or reappraisal of the merits, it falls outside rectification jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the objections raised against the earlier order, including issues relating to project import benefit, provisional assessment, and the sponsoring authority's recommendation, were already covered or involved fresh submissions beyond the limited scope of rectification. The application was therefore not maintainable, and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting correction of the Tribunal's earlier order under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The application sought reconsideration of findings on the eligibility of project import benefit for a single machine, the provisional character of assessment, the scope of the sponsoring authority's recommendation, and allied factual and legal contentions. The Tribunal held that rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is limited to patent and obvious mistakes and cannot be used as a substitute for review or re-argument on facts and law. A matter requiring detailed examination of evidence, elaborate argument, or reappraisal of the merits does not constitute an error apparent from the record. The grounds raised were found to have already been covered or to involve fresh argumentation beyond the permissible scope of rectification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the rectification application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal reaffirmed the finality of its earlier order and declined to reopen the merits through rectification proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction can be invoked only for an obvious, patent error apparent on the face of the record and not for review, reconsideration of evidence, or re-argument on disputed questions of fact or law.

---