Rectification for error apparent where a differently worded exemption notification was applied mechanically to the claim.

A rectification application was maintainable where the earlier final order had applied a precedent construing a differently worded exemption notification. The governing notification in the present matter did not contain the condition requiring cement to be manufactured from clinker produced within the same factory, so the earlier decision could not be applied mechanically. Reliance on that decision was therefore treated as an error apparent on the face of the record, and the earlier final order was recalled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application could be allowed on the ground that the earlier final order contained an error apparent on the face of the record in applying a decision rendered under a differently worded exemption notification.

Analysis: The notification governing the present claim did not contain the condition found in the earlier notification requiring manufacture of cement out of clinker produced within the same factory. Since the two notifications were differently worded, the earlier decision based on the other notification could not be applied mechanically to the present case. Reliance on that decision therefore amounted to an apparent mistake in the final order.

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

---