Rectification on captive-consumption duty cannot reopen a concluded dispute or be used to seek rehearing.

Rectification cannot be used to reopen a concluded dispute on captive-consumption duty liability where the earlier final order had already considered and rejected the assessee's contention. A second rectification application on the same grounds was not maintainable because the prior ROM had been dismissed by a detailed order. The alleged failure to cite specific rules did not establish any mistake apparent from the record, since the substance of the plea had already been addressed. A debatable issue, or an attempt to have the final order rewritten, falls outside the limited scope of rectification. No apparent mistake was shown, and rectification was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second rectification application was maintainable and whether any mistake apparent from the record existed in the earlier final order so as to justify rectification on the question of duty liability for captive consumption.

Analysis: The earlier rectification application on the same grounds had already been dismissed by a detailed order. A application raising the same contentions could not be entertained as a second ROM. On merits, the alleged omission to refer to specific rules did not show non-consideration of the assessee's plea, because the earlier final order had already examined and negatived the contention that duty was not payable on goods captively consumed. Rectification is confined to an obvious mistake and cannot be used to reopen a concluded dispute or to seek rehearing. A debatable issue or a request to rewrite the final order does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: The second rectification application was not maintainable and no mistake apparent from the record was shown. The assessee was not entitled to rectification.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be invoked to reopen a concluded matter on a debatable issue, and a second application on the same grounds is not maintainable when the earlier order has already addressed the grievance.

---