Rectification cannot rewrite an appellate order; unresolved exemption entitlement required remand for fresh consideration.

Rectification power is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used to make a substantive alteration to an appellate order. A second corrigendum that introduced exemption relief, after the original order had confirmed classification and dismissed the appeal, was therefore beyond lawful rectification and was set aside. Because the exemption notification issue had not been properly adjudicated in the original appellate order, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of exemption entitlement in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second corrigendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustainable in law under the power of rectification. (ii) Whether the matter required remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether the second corrigendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustainable in law under the power of rectification.

Analysis: The rectification power is confined to correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used to alter the substance of an order. The first order had confirmed the classification and dismissed the appeal, while the second corrigendum introduced the benefit of the exemption notification and thereby altered the effect of the original decision. Such a change went beyond mere correction and amounted to a substantive reversal.

Conclusion: The second corrigendum was not sustainable and was rightly struck down.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The original appellate order had not dealt with the availability of the exemption notification, which had led to the later corrigendum. Since the exemption issue had not been properly adjudicated, the matter needed to be examined afresh by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the exemption issue.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned corrigendum was set aside, and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration of the exemption entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of rectification cannot be used to make a substantive alteration to an appellate order, and where a material exemption issue has not been properly considered, remand is appropriate for fresh adjudication.

---