Rectification proceedings cannot grant consequential relief or entertain cross-objections; only apparent statutory citation errors may be corrected.

An apparent error in the reference to Rule 2(1)B was corrected by deleting the mistaken citation while leaving the finding on eligibility to actual Cenvat credit intact. The request for consequential relief was held outside the scope of rectification and was rejected. The Revenue's cross-objection was also held not maintainable in rectification proceedings, as cross-objection lies in appeal proceedings rather than in a rectification application. The rectification was thus allowed only to the limited extent of correcting the statutory reference, with the ancillary relief declined and the cross-objection dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order required rectification by deleting the incorrect reference to Rule 2(1)B in the discussion on entitlement to actual Cenvat credit. (ii) Whether the request for consequential relief could be entertained in a rectification application. (iii) Whether the Revenue's cross-objection was maintainable in a rectification application.

Issue (i): Whether the order required rectification by deleting the incorrect reference to Rule 2(1)B in the discussion on entitlement to actual Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The reference to Rule 2(1)B was found to be erroneous, as the relevant rules did not contain such a provision in the context in which it was cited. The correction was limited to deleting the mistaken reference and substituting the operative sentence so that the finding on eligibility to actual Cenvat credit remained intact.

Conclusion: The order was rectified to delete the incorrect reference, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the request for consequential relief could be entertained in a rectification application.

Analysis: The plea for consequential relief after the finding on entitlement to actual credit was treated as outside the scope of rectification. Such a request was held not to be entertainable through a rectification application before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The request for consequential relief was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the Revenue's cross-objection was maintainable in a rectification application.

Analysis: Cross-objection is contemplated under the statutory provision governing appeals, not in a rectification proceeding. On that basis, the Revenue's cross-objection was held to be not maintainable.

Conclusion: The cross-objection was dismissed as not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the extent of correcting the mistaken statutory reference, while the ancillary plea for consequential relief was declined and the Revenue's cross-objection was rejected on maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification proceeding may correct an apparent error in the order, but it cannot be used to seek substantive consequential relief or to entertain a cross-objection not authorised by the appeal provision.

---