Rectification limited to apparent errors on record, not rehearing excise interpretation or capacity-determination disputes.

Rectification proceedings are confined to patent errors of fact or law apparent on the record; they cannot be used to reargue the merits, revisit evidence, or seek a fresh interpretation of excise provisions. The Tribunal had already considered the meaning of factory under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, the capacity determination rules, compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the request for remand. Repetition of those objections or a different view on interpretation did not amount to an apparent mistake. No ground for rectification or recall was made out, and the application was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent on the record so as to justify recall of the final order, and whether debatable questions on interpretation of the excise provisions and closure-related requirements could be reopened in rectification proceedings.

Analysis: The scope of rectification of mistakes is confined to patent errors of fact or law apparent from the record. Grounds which require reconsideration of the merits, reappraisal of evidence, or a fresh view on interpretation do not constitute such apparent mistakes. The Tribunal had already considered the assessee's objections concerning the meaning of factory under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, the capacity determination rules, compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the plea for remand. A different view on those matters, even if urged again, did not convert them into errors apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No ground for rectification or recall was made out, and the application was not maintainable.

---