Rectification cannot revive a new CENVAT-payment argument not raised at hearing, as no apparent error was shown.

A rectification request failed where a party sought reconsideration of whether duty paid through the CENVAT account discharged the liability, because that contention had not been raised during the original hearing. The Tribunal treated the alleged omission as outside rectification jurisdiction, since a new argument cannot be recast as an apparent mistake in the order. The underlying matter concerned penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, and the Tribunal had already waived penalty under Rule 25 while sustaining penalty under Rule 27. The rectification application was therefore rejected for absence of any error apparent from the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Tribunal suffered from a rectifiable mistake for not considering the contention that duty paid through the CENVAT account was sufficient to discharge the duty liability, when that contention had not been raised during the original hearing.

Analysis: The application sought rectification of the final order on the ground that payment through the CENVAT account ought to have been considered. The record showed that the original dispute before the Tribunal concerned waiver of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and that the Tribunal had already waived the penalty under Rule 25 while confirming penalty under Rule 27. The governing principle applied was that a point not raised at the time of argument cannot be treated as a mistake in the Tribunal's order. As the CENVAT-payment contention had not been urged earlier, no error apparent from the record was made out.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable on the alleged ground and was rejected.

---