Rectification limits in classification disputes: no apparent error found where a detailed re-examination of prior precedent was needed.

Rectification was refused where the Revenue alleged an apparent error in a Tribunal order concerning classification and short-levy recovery linked to exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal held that reliance on an earlier Commissioner (Appeals) classification order did not disclose any error on the face of the record because that order had not been placed before it at the hearing. The argument that the earlier Matador Foams decision was distinguishable required detailed examination and lay beyond the limited scope of rectification. No apparent error was shown, so rectification was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suffered from an apparent error warranting rectification in relation to the classification dispute and the applicability of the earlier decision.

Analysis: The proceedings before the Tribunal concerned recovery of short levy arising from alleged wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Revenue's reliance on an earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on classification was held not to disclose any apparent error in the Tribunal's final order, since that order had not been brought to notice at the time of hearing. The further contention that the earlier Tribunal decision in Matador Foams was distinguishable required detailed examination and could not be considered within the limited scope of rectification.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and rectification was not warranted.

---