Rectification power is limited to apparent errors; interest was deleted, but the penalty finding under Rule 173Q stood.

Rectification was confined to clear apparent errors: the reference to interest was deleted because no interest had been proposed or demanded and duty had been paid within the statutory period, so interest was not lawfully chargeable. The penalty finding under Rule 173Q was left undisturbed because the earlier order had already given a reasoned rejection of the bona fide belief plea, and rectification could not be used to revisit that merits-based finding. The only other correction made was the clerical substitution of "Section 173Q" with "Rule 173Q" of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference to interest in the earlier order was liable to be rectified when no interest had been proposed or demanded and the duty had been paid within the period contemplated by law. (ii) Whether the finding sustaining penalty under Rule 173Q could be rectified on the ground of bona fide belief and whether the reference to "Section 173Q" was an apparent error.

Issue (i): Whether the reference to interest in the earlier order was liable to be rectified when no interest had been proposed or demanded and the duty had been paid within the period contemplated by law.

Analysis: The record showed that neither the show-cause notice nor the adjudication order proposed or demanded interest. Under the then applicable law, interest became chargeable only after the statutory period following determination of duty. Since the duty was paid within the stipulated period, interest was not payable.

Conclusion: The earlier observation that duty and interest were sustainable was rectified to delete the reference to interest.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding sustaining penalty under Rule 173Q could be rectified on the ground of bona fide belief and whether the reference to "Section 173Q" was an apparent error.

Analysis: The earlier order had given a reasoned finding rejecting the plea of bona fide belief. The existence of an earlier order on a different time period did not render the finding on the normal period erroneous. Such a finding could not be treated as an apparent mistake on the record. The reference to "Section 173Q" was, however, plainly a clerical mistake.

Conclusion: No rectification was made in respect of penalty, but the citation was corrected to Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the limited extent of deleting the reference to interest and correcting the statutory citation, while the penalty finding remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification power extends to clear clerical or apparent mistakes, but not to reconsideration of a reasoned finding on merits; interest cannot be sustained where it was neither proposed nor lawfully chargeable within the statutory period.

---