Rectification cannot be used to reopen merits where no apparent mistake exists in an exemption ruling.

Rectification requires a mistake apparent from the record, not a fresh challenge to the merits of a concluded exemption ruling. The earlier CESTAT order had accepted exemption for an imported crushing plant on the basis of the Ministry of Surface Transport certificate and supporting expert evidence. In rectification, the Revenue sought to argue that the exemption covered only a cone type crusher, but this was a re-agitation of the same issue rather than identification of an obvious error. No rectifiable mistake was shown, so the correction request failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in the earlier order allowing exemption to the imported crushing plant.

Analysis: The earlier order had dismissed the Revenue's appeal after holding that the imported assembly was eligible for exemption on the basis of the Ministry of Surface Transport's certificate, supplemented by expert evidence. In the rectification proceedings, the Revenue sought to re-agitate the merits by contending that the exemption applied only to a cone type crusher and not to the integrated plant as a whole. The application did not point out any apparent mistake in the order but attempted a fresh examination of the same issue. Rectification could not be used to revisit the merits of the concluded appeal.

Conclusion: No rectifiable error was shown and the request for correction failed.

---