Rectification under Section 35-C(2) is limited to patent errors and cannot be used as a disguised rehearing.

Rectification under Section 35-C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to correcting patent mistakes apparent from the record within the prescribed period, and cannot be used to reopen the merits of an appeal or seek a rehearing. An error apparent must be self-evident and not one requiring detailed argument or reappraisal of the dispute. Because the application was in substance an attempt to re-agitate the classification issue and obtain a fresh decision, it fell outside rectification jurisdiction and was rejected, leaving the original final order undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application under Section 35-C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 disclosed any mistake apparent from the record so as to warrant amendment or recall of the final order.

Analysis: The power under Section 35-C(2) is confined to correcting mistakes apparent from the record within the stipulated period and cannot be used to reopen the merits of the appeal or obtain a rehearing. An error apparent must be patent and self-evident, not one requiring detailed reasoning or re-argument. The application was found to be, in substance, an attempt to re-agitate the classification dispute and secure a fresh decision, which lay outside the scope of rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The application did not disclose any rectifiable mistake apparent from the record and was not maintainable under Section 35-C(2).

Final Conclusion: The request for rectification was rejected, and the original final order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under Section 35-C(2) is limited to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be employed as a disguised review or rehearing of the appeal.

---