Mistake apparent from record justified rectification where the declaration showed reprocessing, defeating extended limitation.

Rectification was allowed only to the extent that the earlier finding on limitation rested on a misreading of the D-3 declaration. The Tribunal held that no apparent mistake existed on the observation about value addition, because the applicants themselves had referred to value addition in their hearing synopsis. However, the record showed that the rejected material was declared as received for reprocessing under Rule 173H, not merely for testing, so the earlier assumption was contradicted by the record. The rectified result was that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the observation relating to value addition in the reprocessed goods disclosed a mistake apparent from the record. (ii) Whether the finding that the goods were declared as received back only for testing was a mistake apparent from the record, and whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the observation relating to value addition in the reprocessed goods disclosed a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The record showed that the applicants themselves had referred to value addition in the synopsis filed at the time of hearing. Since the Tribunal's earlier observation was supported by the material placed before it, no apparent mistake existed on this aspect.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was established on the issue of value addition.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that the goods were declared as received back only for testing was a mistake apparent from the record, and whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The D-3 declaration stated that the rejected material was received for reprocessing under Rule 173H, whereas the earlier order had proceeded on the basis that the declaration mentioned only testing. The record thus contradicted the earlier observation. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the earlier assumption constituted a mistake apparent from the record, and the finding on limitation required modification.

Conclusion: The mistaken observation was rectified and the extended period of limitation was held not invocable.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded in part, and the earlier final order stood modified to the extent that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding may be rectified when the record itself clearly contradicts it, and an extended limitation period cannot be sustained on the basis of a misapprehension about the declaration made to the Department.

---