Rectification requires an apparent record error; refund limitation under Section 11B did not override Rule 5 precedent.

Rectification under the CESTAT's error-correction jurisdiction was held unavailable where the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record. The assessee's plea that a 100% EOU was deemed registered could not support rectification because that basis had not been pleaded earlier, so rejection of the refund claim on non-registration was not shown to be erroneous. The Revenue's plea that Section 11B limitation applies to refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules also failed, because the original view followed binding precedent that Section 11B does not govern such refunds. Both rectification applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee established any apparent error warranting rectification on the ground that, as a 100% EOU, it was deemed to have been registered and therefore the refund claim could not be rejected for non-registration; (ii) Whether the Revenue established any apparent error warranting rectification on the ground that the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee established any apparent error warranting rectification on the ground that, as a 100% EOU, it was deemed to have been registered and therefore the refund claim could not be rejected for non-registration.

Analysis: The alleged error was not shown to arise from any submission made in the appeal or before the Tribunal earlier. The record showed that the assessee had proceeded only on the footing that refund could be entertained even without registration, and had not pleaded that deemed registration barred rejection on the ground of non-registration. In the absence of any such pleaded basis, no apparent mistake in the original order was made out.

Conclusion: The rectification application filed by the assessee was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue established any apparent error warranting rectification on the ground that the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis: The earlier view applied the line of authority holding that the limitation under Section 11B does not govern refund claims made under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Since that view had been founded on binding High Court decisions and the contrary precedent cited by the Revenue had not considered those authorities, the original conclusion could not be treated as an apparent mistake merely because detailed discussion of precedent was absent.

Conclusion: The rectification application filed by the Revenue was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No apparent error was found in the earlier order on either the registration point or the limitation point, and both rectification applications failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is not available to reargue a matter where the alleged error is not apparent from the record, and a limitation objection under Section 11B cannot be revisited in rectification when the original view rests on applicable precedent under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

---