Rectification proceedings cannot reopen merits findings, but apparent factual mistakes in the record may be corrected.

Rectification proceedings are limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded merits determination. Here, the recorded statement that no appeal had been filed was shown to be factually incorrect because an appeal had in fact been filed and later disposed of for non-compliance with pre-deposit; that apparent error was corrected. However, the challenge to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 would have required reconsideration of the earlier liability finding, which amounted to review. The request to revisit the penalty issue was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order contained an apparent factual error requiring rectification; (ii) whether the plea against imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be reconsidered in rectification proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the order contained an apparent factual error requiring rectification.

Analysis: The record showed that the concerned party had in fact filed an appeal, which was disposed of for non-compliance with pre-deposit. The earlier observation that no appeal had been filed was therefore a mistake apparent from the record and was liable to be corrected.

Conclusion: The factual error was rectified in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea against imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be reconsidered in rectification proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge to the penalty involved reconsideration of the merits of the earlier finding on liability, which would amount to review. Rectification proceedings cannot be used to reopen or re-adjudicate a concluded issue on applicability of the penal provisions.

Conclusion: No rectification was granted on the penalty issue.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the extent of correcting the factual misstatement, while the request to revisit the penalty finding was declined as an impermissible review.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification proceedings are confined to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be used to reopen a concluded merits determination.

---