Rectification for apparent record error under section 35C(2) limited to disputed notification conditions; other appeals were rejected.

Rectification under section 35C(2) was held maintainable where the record showed an apparent mistake in the earlier order stating that there was no dispute on clauses (ii) and (iii) of condition No. 3 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE. Since those clauses had been raised in the show cause notice and adjudication proceedings, the order was modified to direct examination of that dispute in appeal E/18/2008. No error was shown in relation to the other appeals, so the remaining rectification requests were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the observation in the earlier order that there was no dispute regarding clauses (ii) and (iii) of condition No. 3 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE was a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the rectification applications filed in respect of appeals other than E/18/2008 disclosed any error in the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the observation in the earlier order that there was no dispute regarding clauses (ii) and (iii) of condition No. 3 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE was a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The earlier order had proceeded on the basis that the controversy was confined to clause (i) of condition No. 3 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE. On a review of the record, the disputed position regarding clauses (ii) and (iii) was found to have been raised in the show cause notice and adjudication proceedings. The incorrect statement that there was no dispute on those clauses was therefore treated as an apparent mistake. Since the original order had already remanded appeal E/18/2008, the rectification was confined to adding a direction that the adjudicating authority should also examine the dispute concerning clauses (ii) and (iii).

Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded to this extent and the earlier order was modified in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the rectification applications filed in respect of appeals other than E/18/2008 disclosed any error in the earlier order.

Analysis: The rectification plea was found to be confined to the controversy arising in appeal E/18/2008. No error was shown in relation to the other appeals, and no basis was established for disturbing the earlier order as regards those matters.

Conclusion: The rectification applications in respect of the other appeals were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier common order was modified only to require consideration of the additional dispute in E/18/2008, while the remaining rectification requests failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification under section 35C(2) is maintainable where the record itself shows an apparent error in the earlier order, and a rectification application cannot be sustained for appeals in which no such error is demonstrated.

---