Mistake apparent from the record cannot be made out merely from non-consideration of submissions or precedent in rectification proceedings.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unavailable where the grievance was that certain submissions and cited case law had not been considered. The Tribunal treated the alleged omissions as not constituting a mistake apparent from the record, particularly because the pre-deposit direction had already been made after considering financial hardship. The requested deletion of the para directing pre-deposit was therefore rejected, and the earlier order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Tribunal could be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that certain submissions and cited case law were not considered, and whether para 8 of the final order directing pre-deposit could be deleted.

Analysis: The application sought rectification on the premise that the Tribunal had not considered the plea of financial hardship and the cited decision relied upon at the final hearing. The Tribunal found that the duty and penalty involved were substantial and that the direction to pre-deposit Rs. 1 lakh before the lower appellate authority was itself passed after taking the assessee's financial hardship into account. It further held that alleged non-consideration of submissions or case law does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 35C(2).

Conclusion: The requested rectification was not maintainable and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the earlier order and left the pre-deposit direction intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of a submission or precedent, by itself, is not a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---