Rectification of apparent mistake limited to obvious errors; drafting slip corrected, but other review-like claims rejected.

Rectification under Section 129B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is limited to obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used for review. The Tribunal treated the word "upheld" in the final order as an obvious drafting error because the paragraph otherwise recorded that the cable-shifting activity was not taxable and the demand had to be set aside; the expression was corrected accordingly. The remaining complaints on composition scheme, alleged calculation error and cum-tax benefit were outside rectification because they had either been addressed already or would require fresh verification or reconsideration, so they were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the word "upheld" occurring in para 8 of the final order was a typographical error liable to be corrected in rectification; (ii) whether the remaining grievances regarding composition scheme, calculation error and cum-tax benefit fell within the scope of rectification of mistake.

Issue (i): whether the word "upheld" occurring in para 8 of the final order was a typographical error liable to be corrected in rectification.

Analysis: The impugned paragraph recorded that the activity of shifting overhead cables or wires was not taxable and that the demand for the same was liable to be set aside, but concluded with the words "the order to that extent is upheld". In the context of the recorded finding, that concluding expression was inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph and was treated as an obvious drafting mistake. The Tribunal held that the correct expression should be that the order to that extent is set aside.

Conclusion: The typographical error was accepted and corrected in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): whether the remaining grievances regarding composition scheme, calculation error and cum-tax benefit fell within the scope of rectification of mistake.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 129B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to an obvious, self-evident or palpable mistake apparent from the record and does not permit review. The composition-scheme plea had already been dealt with in the final order, the alleged calculation error would require fresh verification and long-drawn examination, and the cum-tax benefit plea was not shown to have been raised in the appeal in a manner attracting rectification. These complaints were therefore outside the limited rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The remaining requests were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the typographical error in para 8, while all other requested corrections were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent on the record, meaning obvious and self-evident errors, and cannot be used to reopen or review matters requiring fresh reasoning or verification.

---