Mistake apparent from record claims failed where no evidence supported alleged accounting omissions or RG 23A irregularity.

A rectification application based on alleged mistakes apparent from the record failed because none of the three grounds disclosed any recordable error. The plea that accounts could not be maintained during a period of tension was unsupported by evidence showing disruption of normal life, so no omission was established. The objection regarding entry of rubber stoppers in RG 1 before pharmacopoeial testing had already been considered and rejected for lack of proof of any accepted practice. The challenge to the duty demand on inputs in RG 23A did not undermine the recorded basis that credit-taken inputs were removed without proper accounting. The application was rejected in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged failure to record a finding on the plea regarding non-maintenance of accounts during the period of tension amounted to a mistake apparent from the record; (ii) Whether the objection that the rubber stoppers were not entered in RG 1 until tested for pharmacopoeial compliance disclosed any rectifiable error; (iii) Whether the demand of duty on inputs for want of proper account in the RG 23A register suffered from any mistake apparent from the record.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged failure to record a finding on the plea regarding non-maintenance of accounts during the period of tension amounted to a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The plea was noticed in the original order, but the explanation offered did not establish that normal life was disrupted so as to prevent maintenance of accounts. There was no specific evidence showing that the alleged tension prevented the concerned person from maintaining the records, and the contention was unsupported by material on record.

Conclusion: The alleged omission did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record and no rectification was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection that the rubber stoppers were not entered in RG 1 until tested for pharmacopoeial compliance disclosed any rectifiable error.

Analysis: The original order had already recorded and rejected this plea for want of evidence showing that such deferment of entry before RG 1 was a normal practice. No further evidence was produced to show any error in that conclusion.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand of duty on inputs for want of proper account in the RG 23A register suffered from any mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The original order had considered the reasoning that inputs on which credit had been taken were removed without proper accounting, and the application did not demonstrate any failure to address that reasoning. The contention that the matter involved only non-entry in part I of the RG 23A register did not displace the basis of the demand.

Conclusion: The demand was not shown to rest on any rectifiable error.

Final Conclusion: The application for correction of mistakes was found meritless and stood rejected in entirety.

---