Rectification proceedings can correct clerical name errors, but cannot reopen a debatable remand on composite works contracts.

Rectification under the CESTAT Rules extends to clerical or apparent mistakes, so a wrongly recorded respondent name was correctable where the corrected corporate name had already been used in the High Court direction and appeal papers. By contrast, a challenge that the earlier remand ignored settled law on composite works contracts did not disclose any error apparent on record, because the remand was made without adjudicating the merits and the tax treatment depended on the underlying contracts not then on record. The rectification application therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the respondent's name, while the challenge to the remand order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's name as recorded in the final order contained a rectifiable typographical error; (ii) whether the earlier remand order suffered from an error apparent on record for allegedly ignoring the settled law on taxation of composite works contracts.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's name as recorded in the final order contained a rectifiable typographical error.

Analysis: The respondent had already been directed by the High Court to be recorded in the corrected corporate name, and the department had also used that name in the appeal papers. The mistaken recording of the name in the impugned order was therefore a clerical mistake capable of correction in rectification proceedings under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules, 1982.

Conclusion: The error in the respondent's name was rectifiable and the correction was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier remand order suffered from an error apparent on record for allegedly ignoring the settled law on taxation of composite works contracts.

Analysis: The governing principle from the Supreme Court's works-contract jurisprudence is that service tax cannot be levied on a composite indivisible works contract without segregating the service element from the goods element. The impugned order had only remanded the matter because the relevant contracts were not on record and no merits were adjudicated. Since the applicability of the law depended on examination of the underlying contracts, the grievance raised was debatable and outside the narrow scope of rectification.

Conclusion: No error apparent on record was made out against the remand order on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the respondent's name, and failed on the challenge to the remand order.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under the tribunal's rules lies only for clerical or apparent mistakes, not for reopening a debatable issue or challenging a remand made without adjudicating the merits.

---