Rectification of mistake fails where cited precedent is unrelated to appealability of recovery proceedings under Central Excise law.

A rectification application was rejected because no mistake apparent on the record was shown. The Tribunal found that the earlier order had not overlooked Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd., as no one had appeared for the respondent when that order was passed, and in any event that decision concerned detention of plant and machinery under Rule 230 and its effect on manufacturing activity. It had no bearing on the distinct question whether recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application was maintainable on the ground that the earlier order allegedly failed to consider the decision in Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. and whether that decision had any bearing on appealability of recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that no one had represented the respondent when the earlier order was passed and, therefore, the objection that the cited decision had been ignored was factually incorrect. It further found that the cited judgment dealt with detention of plant and machinery under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the effect of such detention on manufacturing activity. That question was wholly different from the issue of whether recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the cited authority had no relevance to the issue decided earlier, no mistake apparent on the record was shown.

Conclusion: The rectification of mistake application was not sustainable and was dismissed.

---