Remand on prima facie facts did not raise a substantial question of law; rectification cannot reopen merits.

A remand order based on a prima facie assessment of the factual dispute over eligibility for deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. did not finally determine the issue and therefore did not raise a substantial question of law. Rectification was limited to correcting an apparent error on the record and could not be used to reopen or reappreciate the merits; as no such error was shown, rejection of the rectification application was justified. The challenge thus failed because neither order disclosed any ground for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the original authority on the deemed credit claim under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification of mistake application on the ground that it could not be used for re-appreciation of the case on merits.

Issue (i): Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the original authority on the deemed credit claim under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded only a prima facie view on the factual dispute regarding receipt of grey fabrics and then sent the matter back for fresh determination by the original authority. The remand order did not finally decide the disputed factual eligibility issue against either side, and therefore did not give rise to a substantial question of law for interference.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the remand order.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification of mistake application on the ground that it could not be used for re-appreciation of the case on merits.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to correction of an apparent error on record and cannot be invoked to reopen the merits of the dispute. Since no apparent error was established, the Tribunal was right in declining rectification.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification of mistake application was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because neither the remand order nor the rectification order disclosed any question warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand based on a prima facie factual assessment does not by itself create a substantial question of law, and rectification lies only for apparent errors on the record, not for reconsideration of the merits.

---