Rectification for omitted exemption ground allowed, but substantive exemption claim could not be decided in rectification proceedings.

Non-consideration of an alternate exemption ground specifically raised in appeal under Notification No. 151/2009-Cus. constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, so rectification under section 129B(2) read with rule 41 was permissible to the limited extent of inserting discussion on that omitted plea. The entitlement to exemption itself, however, depended on factual and legal conditions in the notification, including supporting certificate requirements, and was treated as a debatable merits issue. Rectification could not be used to reopen or finally decide that substantive claim once the Tribunal had become functus officio on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether omission to deal with the alternate claim for exemption under Notification No. 151/2009-Cus. in the final order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982; (ii) Whether the claimed entitlement to exemption under the said notification could be examined and granted in rectification proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether omission to deal with the alternate claim for exemption under Notification No. 151/2009-Cus. in the final order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen the proceeding. However, non-consideration of a ground specifically raised in appeal amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. The omitted alternate plea regarding Notification No. 151/2009-Cus. had been raised in the appeal and submissions, but was not dealt with in the final order.

Conclusion: Yes. The omission was rectifiable and the order required insertion of a discussion on Notification No. 151/2009-Cus.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimed entitlement to exemption under the said notification could be examined and granted in rectification proceedings.

Analysis: The claim depended upon factual and legal parameters, including satisfaction of the conditions in the notification and the supporting certificate of origin. Such entitlement was treated as a debatable question, and deciding it would amount to re-opening the merits. Rectification proceedings could not be used for that purpose once the Tribunal had become functus officio on the merits aspect.

Conclusion: No. The claim for exemption under Notification No. 151/2009-Cus. could not be finally adjudicated in rectification proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the limited extent of requiring insertion of the omitted discussion, while the substantive exemption claim remained outside the scope of rectification.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of a specifically raised ground is an error apparent on the face of the record, but rectification cannot be used to adjudicate a debatable issue or reopen the merits of the case.

---