Rectification cannot introduce new pleas, and a specific clarification survives a general rescinding circular when the subject differs.

Rectification cannot be used to reopen a final order, reargue the appeal, or introduce a new plea based on material not urged at the original hearing; the fresh contention was therefore outside the permissible scope of rectification. The earlier departmental clarification on use of power was treated as continuing to apply, because the later rescinding circular was read as limited to classification matters and not as overriding that specific clarification. The cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguished on facts, as it concerned use of power in relation to raw material before processing, and did not displace the settled position on drawing water into a tank.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rectification application could be used to introduce a new plea based on material not urged when the appeal was heard. (ii) Whether the earlier departmental circular on use of power remained operative and whether the cited Supreme Court decision displaced the earlier clarification.

Issue (i): Whether the rectification application could be used to introduce a new plea based on material not urged when the appeal was heard.

Analysis: A rectification application is not a vehicle for rearguing the appeal or bringing in material that was not placed before the Tribunal at the time of original hearing. A quasi-judicial authority has no power to review its own final order, and a party cannot seek to reopen the matter by raising a fresh contention in the guise of rectification. The plea based on the later circular had not been urged earlier and was therefore outside the permissible scope of rectification.

Conclusion: The new plea was not entertainable in rectification, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier departmental circular on use of power remained operative and whether the cited Supreme Court decision displaced the earlier clarification.

Analysis: The later circular rescinding earlier instructions was held to relate to classification matters and not to the specific clarification on the effect of using power only for drawing water into a tank. The reasoning of the earlier circular continued to govern the issue. The cited Supreme Court decision was found distinguishable because it concerned use of power in handling raw material prior to commencement of processing, whereas the present case did not involve water as a raw material in manufacture of rosin. The explanation in another exemption notification was treated only as an abundant-caution clarification and not as a basis to alter the settled position on the subject.

Conclusion: The earlier clarification continued to hold the field, and the Supreme Court decision did not assist the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The application for rectification was found to be misconceived both procedurally and on merits, and the earlier order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be used to reargue a case or introduce new material, and a general rescinding circular does not displace a specific clarification on a distinct issue unless it clearly covers that subject.

---