Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent errors; duty demand, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine were largely upheld.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to obvious mistakes and cannot be used to reargue duty demand or penalty findings, so the challenge on those grounds failed. A plea that the order was delayed beyond the hearing date was treated as a debatable issue outside rectification jurisdiction. The omission to discuss confiscation of plant and machinery did not justify recall because the issue was already covered by the operative findings; the confiscation and redemption fine were sustained under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The rectification was allowed only to the limited extent of inserting the omitted paragraph.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in relation to confirmation of duty demand and penalty, including the contention that the order was passed beyond the permissible time from the date of hearing. (ii) Whether the omission in the final order to deal with confiscation of plant and machinery and redemption fine warranted recall of the order, and whether the confiscation and redemption fine were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in relation to confirmation of duty demand and penalty, including the contention that the order was passed beyond the permissible time from the date of hearing.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to obvious and patent mistakes and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek re-appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised against the findings on duty demand and penalty required re-evaluation of the record and involved debatable questions, including the plea based on delay in pronouncement. Such matters do not constitute mistakes apparent from the record.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was found in the confirmation of duty demand and penalty; the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the omission in the final order to deal with confiscation of plant and machinery and redemption fine warranted recall of the order, and whether the confiscation and redemption fine were sustainable.

Analysis: The omission to discuss confiscation did not require recall because the issue was linked with the already decided findings on duty evasion and penalty. On the merits, Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted confiscation of plant and machinery where the statutory conditions were satisfied, and the case involved contraventions attracting confiscation and redemption fine. The quantum of redemption fine was also found not excessive.

Conclusion: Recall of the order was not necessary, and the confiscation of plant and machinery together with the redemption fine was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The rectification request succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the earlier order and adding the omitted paragraph, but the substantive challenge to duty demand, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue the merits or re-appreciate evidence, and an omitted discussion does not require recall where the issue is already covered by the operative findings and is legally sustainable on the record.

---