Rectification jurisdiction is limited to apparent errors, while omission to decide material appeal grounds requires remand for fresh consideration.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used to reappraise evidence or seek fresh reasoning, so rejection of the rectification applications was upheld. An appellate order is unsustainable where material grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, including limitation and the stock verification challenge, are not dealt with; the Tribunal's dismissal order was therefore quashed and the appeal remanded for fresh disposal after consideration of all pressed grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification applications under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal could be sustained when material grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal had not been dealt with.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification applications under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record. A request that requires reappraisal of evidence, reconsideration of factual findings, or fresh reasoning does not fall within that limited jurisdiction. The grounds raised in the rectification applications were of that nature and did not disclose any glaring clerical or manifest mistake.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification applications was upheld and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal could be sustained when material grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal had not been dealt with.

Analysis: The record showed that important grounds, including limitation and the challenge to the manner of stock verification, were not considered by the Tribunal. An appellate order is unsustainable when it fails to record findings on material grounds pressed before it. In such a situation, the proper course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh decision on all surviving grounds.

Conclusion: The dismissal order of the Tribunal was quashed and the appeal was remanded for fresh disposal after considering each pressed ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rectification order failed, but the appellate order could not stand for want of consideration of material grounds, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and an appellate order that omits to decide material grounds pressed before it is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

---