Rectification under Central Excise law is limited to patent errors and cannot reopen debatable issues or review merits.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, and cannot be used to reopen disputed or debatable issues. The Tribunal held that the applicant's complaints on revenue neutrality, limitation, demand computation and penalty were not shown to have been raised at the hearing or in written submissions, and therefore could not be examined through rectification. Authorities cited by the applicant were distinguished on facts. The rectification application was held not maintainable because no mistake apparent from the record was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order sought to be rectified disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The application alleged non-consideration of certain grounds, including revenue neutrality, limitation, calculation of demand, and penalty. The Tribunal held that these points were not shown to have been urged at the time of hearing or included in the written submissions. On the settled law governing rectification, only an obvious and patent mistake can be corrected; a debatable issue or one requiring a long drawn process of reasoning cannot be reopened in rectification proceedings. The authorities relied upon by the applicant were found distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out, and the rectification application was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under Section 35C(2) lies only for an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, not for reconsideration of disputed or debatable issues or for reviewing the merits of the original order.

---