Rectification is limited to apparent errors and cannot be used to review a merits decision.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to revisit the merits of an earlier order on limitation or penalty. A claim that some submissions were not separately discussed does not, by itself, justify reopening the decision through a rectification application. The stated legal effect is that a rectification plea seeking reconsideration of substantive findings functions as an impermissible review, and no rectifiable mistake is established unless a clear apparent error is shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake applications disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record, or amounted to an impermissible attempt to review the earlier decision on merits.

Analysis: The applications were filed under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking reconsideration of the earlier order on limitation and penalty. The Tribunal held that no apparent error was shown in the record. It further held that its power under rectification is limited and cannot be used to alter a decision on merits. A plea that the earlier order had not dealt with certain submissions did not justify reopening the merits through a rectification application.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the applications were not maintainable as a device for review, and no mistake warranting rectification was established.

---