Rectification scope under Central Excise law cannot be expanded with a new plea first raised on appeal.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is limited to mistakes apparent on the face of the record, and a new plea cannot be introduced for the first time in appeal when it was neither raised in the rectification application nor reflected in the Tribunal's order. The attempted reliance on non-compliance with Rule 194 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the statutory form relating to the RG 16 register required examination beyond the existing rectification record and was tied to a different alleged error. Accordingly, the plea was held not entertainable at the appellate stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could raise for the first time in appeal the plea of non-compliance with Rule 194 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the statutory form relating to the RG 16 register in proceedings arising from an application for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The remedy of rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The plea sought to be urged was neither raised before the Tribunal in the rectification application nor reflected in the impugned order. The rectification application itself was restricted to a different alleged mistake concerning file No. 6, and the new contention would require examination of matters not considered earlier. As the issue was not part of the rectification proceedings, it could not be introduced at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The plea of non-compliance with Rule 194 read with Rule 226 and the statutory form could not be raised in the present appeal. The appeal failed and was dismissed.

---