Error apparent on record justified rectification where two undervaluation proceedings were distinct and an order was wrongly treated as final.

Two separate undervaluation proceedings were based on different factual foundations: one on alleged related-person valuation under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002, and the other on misrepresentation of premium brands as inferior brands. The earlier final order was therefore ? No, it was held to contain an error apparent on the face of the record in treating those proceedings as the same issue. The order also wrongly recorded finality of one adjudication order despite the appeal period still running and an appeal being pending. On these record-based errors, the rectification application succeeded and the earlier final order was recalled.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier final order contained an apparent error in treating two separate adjudication orders as having dealt with the same issue; (ii) whether the earlier final order contained an apparent error in recording that one adjudication order had attained finality.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier final order contained an apparent error in treating two separate adjudication orders as having dealt with the same issue.

Analysis: The record showed that one notice concerned undervaluation on the basis of alleged related-person valuation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002, while the other concerned undervaluation arising from misrepresentation of premium brands as inferior brands. The two proceedings related to different factual foundations and different valuation questions. The earlier finding that both orders dealt with the same issue was therefore incorrect on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The finding was held to be an error apparent on record.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier final order contained an apparent error in recording that one adjudication order had attained finality.

Analysis: The finding of finality had been recorded before the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, and an appeal against that order was in fact pending. The record therefore contradicted the earlier assumption that the adjudication order had become final.

Conclusion: The finding was held to be an error apparent on record.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded and the earlier final order was recalled.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application can be allowed where the record itself demonstrates that the earlier order proceeded on demonstrably incorrect assumptions about the identity of issues decided and the finality of a related order.

---