Rectification of mistake is confined to manifest record errors; prior Modvat limitation findings and remand were not reopenable.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is limited to a manifest error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen issues already considered on merits. On the limitation point relating to Modvat credit taken within six months from 18-7-1996, the prior order had already considered Notification No. 28/95-CE (NT), the Larger Bench ruling in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., and the Board circular; no apparent mistake was shown, so no correction was warranted. The remand concerning admissibility of Modvat credit was also found free from apparent error, as the challenge that the inputs were different from those in the pending reference was not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding on limitation in respect of Modvat credit taken within six months from 18-7-1996 suffered from a mistake apparent on the record and was liable to rectification. (ii) Whether the remand concerning admissibility of Modvat credit of Rs. 58,50,833/- contained an apparent mistake warranting correction.

Issue (i): Whether the finding on limitation in respect of Modvat credit taken within six months from 18-7-1996 suffered from a mistake apparent on the record and was liable to rectification.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to a manifest and glaring mistake apparent from the record. The limitation issue had already been decided after considering Notification No. 28/95-CE (NT), the Larger Bench decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., and the Board's Circular No. 275/109/96-CX dated 26-11-1996. The same submissions were advanced at the original hearing and were already evaluated in the final order.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the record was shown, and the finding on limitation was not rectifiable.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand concerning admissibility of Modvat credit of Rs. 58,50,833/- contained an apparent mistake warranting correction.

Analysis: The remand directed the adjudicating authority to decide the credit claim after the High Court's decision in reference. The contention that the inputs covered by the credit were different from those involved in the pending reference was not established. On that basis, no apparent error in the remand order was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The remand order did not disclose any mistake apparent on the record.

Final Conclusion: The request for rectification failed on both grounds, and the order under challenge remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under the relevant provision lies only for a manifest error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen issues already considered on merits.

---