Rectification power limited to apparent mistakes; Tribunal cannot use it to review an order or raise new pleas later.

Rectification under section 35C(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot operate as a disguised review to reopen a valid order. Alleged omissions concerning comparative clearances, retrospective effect of the Tariff Advice, and concurrent factual findings were not shown to be such apparent errors, particularly because the earlier decision was not based on those contentions. The new plea based on omission of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also rejected because it had not been raised at the appeal hearing and, in any event, did not amount to an apparent mistake. The rectification application was therefore rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could rectify the earlier order under section 35C(2) on the ground of alleged mistakes apparent from the record, including non-consideration of certain factual contentions and the effect of omission of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The rectification power under section 35C(2) is narrow and cannot be used as a disguised review to reopen or reverse a validly passed order. The alleged omissions concerning comparative clearances by other parties, the retrospective operation of the Tariff Advice, and the concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be errors apparent on the face of the record, especially since the earlier decision was not founded on those contentions. The new plea regarding the omission of Rule 10 could not be entertained in rectification proceedings because it had not been urged at the hearing of the appeal and, in any event, did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: The application for rectification was not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.

---