Rectification for mistake apparent from the record allowed where a relevant coordinate bench decision and key submissions were not considered.

Non-consideration of a cited coordinate bench decision, other relevant submissions, and connected materials can constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification purposes. An incorrect notification reference may also be corrected as a typographical error, and a mistaken factual premise regarding imported components may justify reopening the order. On these rectifiable aspects, the Tribunal allowed the rectification application and directed the matter to be listed for further hearing, leaving the substantive classification dispute for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-consideration of the cited coordinate bench decision and other relevant submissions, together with a typographical error in the notification reference, constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The rectification power was invoked on the footing that the earlier order had omitted to consider a relevant coordinate bench decision relied upon by the appellant, had not dealt with a further cited decision bearing on the classification dispute, had recorded an incorrect notification number, and had proceeded on an allegedly mistaken factual premise regarding the imported components. The Tribunal accepted that non-consideration of a relevant decision placed on record can amount to a mistake apparent from the record, and also treated the incorrect notification reference as a typographical error capable of rectification. The Tribunal further accepted that the written submissions filed after hearing and the connected materials ought to have been taken into account before the final order was passed.

Conclusion: The application for rectification of mistake was allowed in respect of the identified issues, and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was opened for reconsideration on the specified rectifiable aspects, while the substantive classification controversy was left for further hearing.

---