Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to review an earlier legal interpretation; the Tribunal rejected the applications as not maintainable.

Rectification jurisdiction under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act cannot be used to reopen an earlier interpretation of law or alter legal conclusions on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record. A claimed error based only on a different possible interpretation requires reconsideration of the merits and amounts in substance to review, which the Tribunal has no power to undertake under that provision. The proper course is an appeal under Section 130E(b), and a later order adopting a different view does not convert a concluded interpretation into a rectifiable mistake. The rectification applications were therefore rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could, in exercise of rectification jurisdiction under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, reopen and alter its earlier interpretation and legal conclusions on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The claimed error did not relate to any factual mistake or patent slip in the record. The grievance was only that a different interpretation of the relevant provision ought to have been adopted. Such a request would require reconsideration of the merits and amounted in substance to review of the earlier order, for which no power existed under Section 129B(2). The proper remedy against that interpretation lay in appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the earlier Tribunal order had already been confirmed by dismissal of that appeal. A later order taking a different view did not convert the earlier concluded interpretation into a mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: The rectification applications were not maintainable and were rejected.

---