Debatable error on the record and metal-wares classification narrowed tax treatment of steel trunks and rexine cloth.

Steel trunks were held outside the entry for "wares made of any metal" because "wares" was treated as meaning utensils, and the Hindi equivalent "bartan" did not extend to trunks; they were therefore not taxable at 3 per cent. On rexine cloth, the Assistant Commissioner's exemption order was not found to contain a mistake apparent from the record, as the issue was debatable and depended on competing views of cloth, processing, and manufacture. Since the error was not patent or self-evident, revision on that basis was not justified. The references were answered in favour of the Revenue and the matter was remitted for disposal of the remaining contentions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether steel trunks fell within the entry "wares made of any metal" and were taxable at 3 per cent. (ii) Whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner allowing exemption on rexine cloth involved a mistake apparent from the record, so as to justify revision.

Issue (i): Whether steel trunks fell within the entry "wares made of any metal" and were taxable at 3 per cent.

Analysis: The term "wares" was treated as referring to utensils, and the Hindi version of the notification used the equivalent expression "bartan". Steel trunks could not reasonably answer that description. The prior binding view that steel trunks were not hardwares also supported exclusion from the metal-wares entry.

Conclusion: Steel trunks were not covered by the entry "wares made of any metal" and were not taxable at 3 per cent.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner allowing exemption on rexine cloth involved a mistake apparent from the record, so as to justify revision.

Analysis: A mistake apparent from the record must be a glaring and obvious mistake, not a matter requiring long argument or fresh investigation. The exemption question depended upon competing decisions on cloth, processed cloth, and the effect of manufacture and processing, including the relation between earlier tribunal decisions and later analogous rulings. The issue was held to be highly arguable and not free from doubt, and therefore not a patent mistake on the record. In view of that conclusion, the separate question whether revisional power under section 31 could be used to correct such a mistake was not required to be decided.

Conclusion: There was no mistake apparent from the record in the Assistant Commissioner's order on rexine cloth.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered in favour of the Revenue, and the matter was sent back for disposal of the remaining contentions in accordance with the answers recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: A question is not a mistake apparent from the record if its determination is debatable and depends on competing legal views or detailed reasoning rather than on an obvious and self-evident error.

---