Rectification cannot be used as review; excise proceedings remained sustainable under the saving provision after rule omission.

Rectification is limited to correcting a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision or obtain review. In this excise context, the depreciation objection failed because the record showed depreciation had been allowed, and the plea was treated as a reargument rather than a patent error. The jurisdictional objection also failed: proceedings under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held sustainable despite omission of Rule 57U, because Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 preserves such actions. The cited contrary decision was treated as distinguishable, and the rectification application was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in relation to the finding on depreciation; whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue or sustain proceedings under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after its omission in view of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and whether non-consideration of cited Tribunal decisions or the plea of bona fide belief warranted rectification.

Analysis: The challenge on depreciation was rejected because the assessment order showed that depreciation had in fact been allowed and that, even if it was carried forward, it still amounted to availment of depreciation for purposes relevant to the excise dispute. The application was held to be an attempt to reargue the matter and to seek review of the earlier order rather than correction of any patent error. On jurisdiction, the Tribunal relied on the Larger Bench ruling applying Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to hold that proceedings could still be initiated under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The cited contrary decision was found distinguishable, and the earlier order had already dealt with the authorities cited on the factual distinction.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was shown on any of the grounds urged. The application for rectification was not maintainable as it sought review in the guise of rectification, and the jurisdictional objection also failed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order stood undisturbed, and no relief was granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision or to obtain review under the guise of correcting an apparent mistake, and proceedings under the erstwhile excise rules remain sustainable where saved by the retrospective validating provision.

---