Rectification cannot correct a debatable limitation issue or overlapping show cause notice objection when no apparent error exists.

A debatable issue on limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, involving whether the Tribunal had correctly applied decided cases, could not be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record and was therefore outside rectification jurisdiction. The objection that the proceedings overlapped with another show cause notice was also not a rectifiable mistake, because it had to be addressed by the jurisdictional authorities rather than in rectification of the final order. No rectifiable error was made out, and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in relation to the Tribunal's earlier view on the time-bar issue under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the objection regarding overlap with another show cause notice could be entertained in rectification.

Analysis: The question whether the Tribunal had erred in applying or not applying the ratio of decided cases on limitation required detailed examination of authorities and hearing of the parties, and therefore could not be treated as an apparent mistake amenable to rectification. The grievance that continuation of proceedings would trespass into another show cause notice was held to be a matter for the jurisdictional authorities and not a ground for rectification of the final order.

Conclusion: No rectifiable error was made out, and the rectification application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed and the rectification request failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable issue requiring detailed legal examination cannot be corrected as an error apparent on the record in rectification proceedings.

---