Rectification cannot replace review when parties seek reopening of a final appellate order under central excise law.

A rectification application cannot be used as a disguised review of a final appellate order, and grounds already argued in appeal do not justify reopening the matter. The Tribunal therefore refused to entertain the application styled as review under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also rejected the jurisdictional objection, following the Larger Bench view that the Assistant Commissioner had unlimited monetary powers to issue the demand notice for the normal limitation period. The objection based on Section 11AB failed because the penalties had been imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reduced penalties were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application styled as one for review could be entertained as a rectification of mistake application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) whether the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and whether penalty could be said to have been imposed under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): whether the application styled as one for review could be entertained as a rectification of mistake application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The application sought reconsideration of an earlier order reducing the personal penalties. The Tribunal noted that review by the Tribunal of its own order is not available in law, and that a rectification application cannot be used as a disguised review. The remaining grounds were merely reiterations of matters already urged in the appeal.

Conclusion: The application could not be maintained as a review in the guise of rectification and was liable to be rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and whether penalty could be said to have been imposed under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection was found to be without merit because the Tribunal relied on the Larger Bench view that the Assistant Commissioner had unlimited monetary powers for issuing the demand notice for the normal period of limitation. The contention regarding Section 11AB also failed because the penalties had in fact been imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and not under Section 11AB.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge and the objection based on Section 11AB were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the earlier order and refused to reopen the matter through rectification, leaving the reduced penalties undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application cannot be used as a substitute for review, and objections not shown to have merit on the record do not justify reopening a final appellate order.

---