Rectification for apparent record error fails where a party seeks to reopen settled Cenvat credit issues on new merits grounds.

Rectification under the record-mistake standard was confined to an obvious and patent error apparent from the record, not to reopening a concluded dispute or introducing a new merits-based contention after prolonged litigation. The Tribunal found that the matter had long proceeded only on recovery mechanism and limitation, while eligibility on merits had never been raised in earlier rounds, and that the amounts had already been reversed. No mistake apparent from the record was established, so rectification was refused and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order sought to be rectified suffered from a mistake apparent from the record so as to warrant rectification.

Analysis: The application was founded on the plea that later decisions and the contention on the merits regarding reversal of Cenvat credit under the Chapter X procedure showed an error in the earlier order. The Tribunal noted that for many years the dispute had been pursued only on the question of recovery mechanism and limitation, and the merits of eligibility were never raised in the earlier rounds of litigation. The Tribunal further observed that the amounts had already been reversed and that the alleged error, if any, was not an obvious mistake attributable to the Tribunal or one evident from the record.

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

Final Conclusion: The rectification application failed, and the earlier order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification lies only for an obvious and patent error apparent from the record, not for reopening a concluded dispute or for raising a new merits-based contention after prolonged litigation.

---