Mistake apparent from record justified recall where capital goods credit rules differed from inputs and the credit period was extended.

A rectification application was filed on the ground that the earlier order had overlooked the distinction between documentary requirements for capital goods and those applicable to inputs, and had not properly considered the notification extending the period for availment of credit. On review of the record and the relevant provisions, the Tribunal found that these aspects had been ignored, creating an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier order was therefore recalled, and the rectification application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order suffered from a mistake apparent from the record warranting recall in view of the distinction between the documentary requirements under the relevant excise rules and the effect of the notification extending the credit period.

Analysis: The application asserted that the earlier decision had proceeded on a precedent concerning inputs, whereas the dispute related to capital goods. It was also pointed out that the relevant rule for capital goods did not confine admissible documents in the same manner as the rule governing inputs, and that the notification extended the period for availment of credit on the specified basis. On examination of the record and the cited provisions, the Tribunal found that the earlier order had overlooked these aspects, amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The earlier order was recalled and the rectification application was allowed.

---