Rectification cannot reopen merits where no obvious error appears on the record, the Tribunal reiterates.

A rectification application cannot be used to re-open the merits of an earlier CESTAT order or to substitute for an appeal. The Tribunal held that only an obvious mistake apparent from the record can justify rectification, and a challenge to the interpretation of Notification No. 2/95, the Board's circular, or the effect of para 9.9(f) of the EXIM Policy had to be pursued in appeal. Since no such apparent error was shown, the rectification request was not maintainable and the attempt to re-argue the exemption issue was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for rectification of mistake could be entertained on the ground that the earlier order allegedly failed to apply the Board's circular and incorrectly held that the benefit of Notification No. 2/95 was unavailable to clearances under para 9.9(f) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002.

Analysis: The earlier order had examined the relevant notification and the Board's circular and had taken the view that goods cleared under para 9.9(f) of the EXIM Policy did not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 2/95, and that the notification, being law, would prevail over the circular. The application sought to re-open that conclusion by relying on the alleged binding effect of the circular and on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal held that, even if the earlier view was said to be open to challenge, such a contention had to be pursued in appeal and not through rectification. A rectification application cannot be used as an appeal in disguise, and only an obvious mistake apparent from the record can justify interference.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the rectification application was not maintainable to re-argue the merits.

---