Rectification for apparent mistake applies only to obvious errors, not merit-based reargument of duty and penalty findings.

Rectification under the mistake-apparent standard is confined to obvious, self-evident errors and cannot be used for reappreciation of the merits. In this CESTAT note, the Department's challenge to the finding that no duty was payable on 81 coils removed from a bonded warehouse was held to require reconsideration of the evidence, not correction of a patent mistake. The separate challenge to reduction of the manager's penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 was also treated as a request for substantive review rather than rectification. The applications therefore failed on both counts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal's earlier order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that no duty was payable on the 81 coils removed from the bonded warehouse; (ii) whether the reduction of penalty imposed on the manager from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 could be corrected as a mistake apparent on the record.

Issue (i): whether the Tribunal's earlier order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that no duty was payable on the 81 coils removed from the bonded warehouse.

Analysis: An error apparent must be self-evident and capable of being detected without long-drawn reasoning or detailed argument. The Department's grievance depended on reappreciation of the joint verification report and on contesting the merits of the earlier finding, which could not be treated as a patent mistake justifying rectification.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was established on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the reduction of penalty imposed on the manager from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 could be corrected as a mistake apparent on the record.

Analysis: The challenge to the reduction of penalty was unsupported by any ground showing a patent mistake in the earlier order. The request again sought substantive reconsideration rather than correction of an obvious error.

Conclusion: The reduction of penalty did not disclose any mistake apparent on the record.

Final Conclusion: The rectification applications failed because no apparent mistake in the earlier order was shown on either count.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for an obvious and self-evident error, not for a matter requiring reargument or reassessment on the merits.

---