Mistake apparent from the record not established where appeal was already allowed on another issue and rectification was sought for omitted finding.

An omission to record an express finding on recovery or liability of past dues after auction sale and transfer of assets was held not to be a mistake apparent from the record, because the appeal had already been allowed on another issue. The possibility that the earlier order might be affected in a future Revenue appeal did not justify rectification, and the cited income-tax precedent was distinguished on the basis that it involved dismissal as time-barred rather than an appeal allowed on merits. The rectification application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order allowing the appeal suffered from a mistake apparent from the record for not recording a finding on the recoverability or liability of dues of the earlier company under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The application sought rectification on the ground that no express finding had been recorded on the liability for past dues after auction sale and transfer of the company's assets. The omission was held not to constitute a mistake apparent from the record because the appeal had already been allowed on another issue. The apprehension that the earlier order might be affected in a future Revenue appeal did not justify rectification. The authority relied on the distinction between the present case and the cited income-tax decision, where the appeal had been dismissed as time-barred, whereas here the assessee's appeal had been allowed on one issue.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was found in the earlier final order, and the rectification application was dismissed.

---