Retrospective amendment overlooked in final order justified recall under rectification jurisdiction and remand for fresh decision.

A retrospective amendment to Rule 57CC(2) inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 was held to have direct bearing on the recovery issue previously decided. Because the amendment was already on the statute book when the final order was passed but had been overlooked, the omission constituted a patent mistake apparent from the record. The rectification application was therefore maintainable, the earlier order was recalled, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee. The text distinguishes such recall from an attempt to introduce a wholly new case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order required recall under the rectification power on the ground that the retrospective amendment to Rule 57CC(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been overlooked.

Analysis: The earlier final order had proceeded on Rule 57CC(2) and had held against recovery for want of a machinery provision. The present application showed that an Explanation inserted by Section 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 operated retrospectively for the relevant period and provided a recovery mechanism for amounts payable under Rule 57CC(2). As that provision was already on the statute book when the final order was passed, the omission to consider it amounted to a patent mistake apparent from the record, and the situation was distinguishable from an attempt to introduce an entirely new case.

Conclusion: The recall application was maintainable, the earlier order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The department succeeded in getting the earlier order recalled, but the underlying dispute on recovery was left for reconsideration by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective statutory amendment that directly bears on the issue decided and was overlooked in the final order constitutes a mistake apparent from the record and can justify recall under the rectification jurisdiction.

---