Rectification cannot re-open evidence: Tribunal rejects name correction and credit challenge absent a patent record error.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to re-open or re-appreciate evidence. The Tribunal held that the appellant-name correction was not maintainable because the alleged error originated in the Commissioner's record and was merely carried into the appeal papers, so the Tribunal's order reflected the name as filed. The challenge to disallowance of modvat/cenvat credit also failed because the application sought reconsideration of concurrent factual findings that invoices were bogus and no goods were transported or received, which lies beyond rectification. The application was rejected as disclosing no apparent error.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the applicant was entitled to rectification of the Tribunal's final order by correcting the appellant's name; (ii) whether the findings in the Tribunal's final order disallowing modvat/cenvat credit could be rectified on the ground of an alleged mistake apparent from the record.

Issue (i): whether the applicant was entitled to rectification of the Tribunal's final order by correcting the appellant's name.

Analysis: The request for correction of the appellant's name was examined in the light of the record before the Tribunal. The mistake was found to have originated before the Commissioner and had been carried into the appeal itself. Since the Tribunal's order reflected the name as supplied in the appeal papers, there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's record warranting rectification.

Conclusion: The request for rectification of the appellant's name was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the findings in the Tribunal's final order disallowing modvat/cenvat credit could be rectified on the ground of an alleged mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The rectification request sought deletion of the factual finding supporting disallowance of credit. The record showed that the Tribunal had already affirmed the concurrent findings of the authorities below, based on evidence that the invoices were bogus and that no goods had been transported or received. The application, in substance, asked for re-appreciation of evidence and a different view on the merits, which is beyond the limited scope of rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A later contrary view in another case could not convert the concluded findings into a mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's finding on disallowance of credit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable as it disclosed no apparent error and sought impermissible reconsideration of concluded factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be used to re-open or re-appreciate evidence or to alter concurrent findings unless a patent mistake apparent from the record is shown.

---