Rectification cannot become review: apparent clerical errors may be corrected, but merits cannot be reopened through recall.

Rectification under the appellate provision is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as review or rehearing on merits. A clerical mismatch in the duty figure recorded in the earlier order was treated as an apparent error because it did not match the amount in the order-in-original, so the figure was corrected to the amount actually disallowed. By contrast, the assessee's attempt to recall the order on jurisdiction, competence of the issuing officer, and limitation was rejected because those points either had already been considered or required a merits review, which rectification does not permit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty figure recorded in the earlier appellate order contained an apparent mistake warranting rectification under the rectification provision; (ii) whether the assessee's request to recall the earlier order could be entertained as a rectification application, including on grounds relating to jurisdiction, competence of the officer issuing notice, and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the duty figure recorded in the earlier appellate order contained an apparent mistake warranting rectification under the rectification provision.

Analysis: The figure of Rs. 7.77 lakhs recorded in the earlier order did not match the amount of Modvat credit disallowed in the order-in-original, which was Rs. 13,76,598/-. The discrepancy was apparent from the record and did not require reappreciation of the merits.

Conclusion: The mistake was rectifiable, and the figure was directed to be read as Rs. 13,76,598/-. The application by the Revenue was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's request to recall the earlier order could be entertained as a rectification application, including on grounds relating to jurisdiction, competence of the officer issuing notice, and limitation.

Analysis: The rectification power could not be converted into a review power or used as an appellate rehearing on merits. The points regarding jurisdiction and competence had already been noticed in the earlier order, and the limitation contention was not specifically taken in the memorandum of appeal. In the absence of a mistake apparent on the face of the record, recall of the order was impermissible.

Conclusion: The assessee's application was rejected and dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier appellate order was corrected only to the extent of the clerical error in the duty figure, while the assessee's attempt to reopen the merits was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review or rehearing on merits.

---