Rectification jurisdiction cannot revisit a debatable finding on notification eligibility when no apparent error exists on the record.

Rectification jurisdiction is limited to an obvious error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a disguised review. On the material recorded, the goods were declared as aluminium profile and hardware for furniture fittings, supporting the finding that they were meant for fabrication or manufacture of furniture rather than retail sale; that interpretation did not create a mistake apparent from the record. The application for rectification was rejected and the earlier finding on ineligibility for Notification No. 29/2010-Cus was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the final order suffered from a mistake apparent on the record so as to warrant rectification, particularly on the finding that the goods were not for retail sale and therefore did not qualify for the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to an obvious and self-evident mistake and cannot be used as a disguised review. The record showed that the goods were declared as aluminium profile and hardware for furniture fittings, supporting the view that they were meant for fabrication or manufacture of furniture and not for retail sale. Where a view has been taken on the basis of the material on record, the fact that another interpretation may also be possible does not create an error apparent from the record.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the record was shown, and the application for rectification was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the earlier finding on eligibility to the notification benefit and left the original order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for an obvious error apparent on the face of the record, and a debatable finding based on one of two possible interpretations cannot be corrected under rectification jurisdiction.

---