Mistake apparent from the record allows rectification of an omitted appellate ground and improper appropriation of investigation deposit.

A patent typing error in an earlier final order was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, so the reference to Rs. 60 lakhs was rectified to Rs. 60 thousand without any fresh merits adjudication. The omission to deal with a material challenge to appropriation of a deposit made during investigation was also treated as rectifiable under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, because a ground specifically raised in appeal had not been considered. On the facts stated, the appropriation of the deposit towards the dues of another entity was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference to Rs. 60 lakhs in the earlier final order was a clerical mistake liable to rectification. (ii) Whether the order appropriating Rs. 1,00,00,000/- deposited during investigation against the dues of another firm could be set aside in rectification proceedings under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the reference to Rs. 60 lakhs in the earlier final order was a clerical mistake liable to rectification.

Analysis: The amount mentioned in the third line of paragraph 25 of the earlier final order was inconsistent with the actual penalty imposed and was an obvious typing error. Such a mistake was evident from the record and did not require any fresh adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The mistake was rectifiable, and Rs. 60 lakhs was required to be substituted with Rs. 60 thousand.

Issue (ii): Whether the order appropriating Rs. 1,00,00,000/- deposited during investigation against the dues of another firm could be set aside in rectification proceedings under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The earlier appeal had specifically challenged the appropriation of the deposited amount, and the omission to deal with that contention in the final order amounted to a mistake apparent from the record. Rectification under Section 35C(2) extends to such an omission where a material contention raised in the appeal was not considered. The appropriation of a deposit made during investigation towards the dues of another entity was also found unsustainable on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The appropriation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded, the earlier final order was corrected on the penalty figure, and the appropriation of the investigation deposit was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A patent omission to consider a material ground raised in appeal constitutes a mistake apparent from the record and can be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

---