Mistake apparent from the record limits rectification to clear errors; unsubstantiated limitation and refund pleas failed.

Rectification was confined to correcting the earlier order so it properly distinguished the pre-1-3-1979 import from the post-1-3-1979 imports, reflected the changed tariff position under Item 23A(4), and granted the corresponding appeal-specific relief. The plea that the duty demand in one appeal was time-barred failed because the necessary dates were not substantiated. No further rectification was allowed on refund, setting aside the classification, or the benefit of the notification, as no mistake apparent from the record was shown and those points had not been clearly pressed for decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier order required rectification to distinguish the pre-1-3-1979 import from the post-1-3-1979 imports and to record the correct tariff position and consequential relief; (ii) whether the plea that the demand of duty in Appeal No. 151/82-D was barred by time was substantiated; (iii) whether there was any apparent error in not passing further orders on refund, setting aside the earlier classification, or the benefit of the notification.

Issue (i): whether the earlier order required rectification to distinguish the pre-1-3-1979 import from the post-1-3-1979 imports and to record the correct tariff position and consequential relief.

Analysis: The record showed that the appeal relating to the pre-1-3-1979 import stood on a different factual footing from the two post-1-3-1979 appeals because the description of Item 23A(4) had changed after the budget amendment. The earlier order had to be corrected so that the appeal-specific consequences were properly reflected, including the distinct classification and relief position.

Conclusion: The rectification was allowed to that extent, and the order was amended accordingly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the plea that the demand of duty in Appeal No. 151/82-D was barred by time was substantiated.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was not supported by the specific dates necessary to establish time bar. In the absence of substantiation, the contention could not be accepted as a basis for further modification of the order.

Conclusion: The plea of time bar was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether there was any apparent error in not passing further orders on refund, setting aside the earlier classification, or the benefit of the notification.

Analysis: No such error was shown from the record. The additional points were either not argued for a decision at the earlier stage or had not been clearly pressed in the manner required for rectification. The omission to deal with them did not disclose a mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: No further rectification was warranted on those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The judgment was corrected only to the limited extent necessary to reflect the appeal-specific distinction and related relief, while the remaining rectification pleas were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under the mistake-apparent provision is confined to errors evident from the record and cannot be used to reopen issues that were not substantiated or specifically pressed for decision.

---