Rectification proceedings may correct clerical errors, but cannot be used to review concluded findings on merits.

A clerical mistake apparent from the record in the preamble of an earlier final order, relating to the number and date of the order-in-original, was rectified because it did not affect the substance of the decision. Requests to revisit findings on clandestine removal, MODVAT eligibility, limitation, and natural justice were rejected because rectification proceedings cannot be used as a review, and the Tribunal became functus officio after passing the earlier order. Only the typographical correction was allowed; the attempt to reopen the merits was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the preamble to the earlier final order contained a rectifiable typographical error in the description of the order-in-original. (ii) Whether the remaining rectification requests amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the preamble to the earlier final order contained a rectifiable typographical error in the description of the order-in-original.

Analysis: The error in the number and date of the order-in-original was treated as a clerical mistake apparent from the record. Such an error could be corrected without disturbing the substance of the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The typographical error was rectified, and the preamble was directed to be read as referring to the correct order-in-original.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining rectification requests amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier order.

Analysis: The remaining prayers sought reconsideration of findings on merits, including alleged clandestine removal, eligibility for MODVAT benefit, limitation, and natural justice. Those requests were held to be in the nature of review, and the Tribunal was held to be functus officio after passing the earlier order. Since the Tribunal has no power of review, such relief could not be granted in rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: The remaining rectification requests were rejected.

Final Conclusion: Only the clerical correction was allowed, while the attempt to reopen the merits of the earlier order was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification proceedings can correct only clerical or typographical mistakes apparent on the record and cannot be used to seek review of a concluded order on merits.

---