Rectification cannot reopen unchallenged findings on disclosure and no suppression, so extended limitation and penalty enhancement fail.

A rectification application cannot be used to reopen unchallenged concurrent findings that the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts and had not suppressed information. On that basis, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be revived, and the proposed enhancement of penalty also failed because it rested on the same factual foundation. The Tribunal noted that any challenge to those factual findings had to be pursued by cross-appeal, not by ROM. In the absence of an apparent mistake, the rectification request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue had made out any apparent mistake warranting recall of the earlier final order and, consequently, whether demand for the larger period and enhancement of penalty could be sustained on the basis of alleged suppression of facts.

Analysis: The authorities below had recorded a categorical finding that the relevant facts had been disclosed and that there was no suppression by the assessee. The earlier final order had relied on those findings to hold that the extended period could not be invoked under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that if the revenue was aggrieved by those factual findings, the proper course was to file a cross-appeal, which had not been done. In the absence of any challenge to the factual findings, the plea of suppression could not be reopened through a ROM application. The reduction of penalty by the lower authority also proceeded on the same factual foundation and was likewise unchallenged.

Conclusion: The alleged mistake was not established, the plea for invoking the larger period failed, and the ROM application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A review or rectification application cannot be used to reopen unchallenged concurrent findings of fact on disclosure and absence of suppression, especially to revive a time-barred demand under the extended limitation period.

---