Rectification of mistake rejected where uncontroverted flow meter findings, not File No. 6, supported the demand.

Rectification of mistake was refused because no apparent error was shown in the final order. The demand rested on shift-wise records based on flow meter readings, and the Commissioner's factual finding that the flow meters were not totalizers and did not record cumulative raw naphtha consumption remained unchallenged. Even assuming File No. 6 had been referred to in the show cause notice and put to the respondent, that material would not disturb the ative factual basis of the earlier decision. The Tribunal therefore held that the alleged non-consideration of File No. 6 did not justify rectification and rejected the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for rectification of mistake could succeed on the ground that contents of File No. 6 were mentioned in the show cause notice and allegedly not considered in the final order.

Analysis: The application challenged the earlier final order on the footing that File No. 6 had been relied upon in the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the demand itself rested on the shift-wise records maintained on the basis of flow meter readings, and the Commissioner had recorded a factual finding that the flow meters were not totalizers and did not show cumulative consumption of raw naphtha. That finding remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal further held that even if the contents of File No. 6 were assumed to have been put to the respondent, it would not alter the decisive factual finding supporting the earlier conclusion.

Conclusion: No rectifiable error was shown, and the rectification application was rejected.

---