Rectification limited to apparent record errors, with exemption notifications construed on their own terms, not the Drawback Rules.

Rectification was confined to mistakes apparent from the record: the Tribunal directed substitution of the correct name of the appellant's representative where the earlier order had recorded the wrong name. It also ordered insertion of an omitted paragraph dealing with the typed note, cited precedents and the contention based on the Drawback Rules, but rejected the remaining requested changes because they had not been argued, did not disclose any apparent error, or would not affect the result. The note further states that an exemption notification must be construed on its own language and not by importing the Drawback Rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's earlier order required rectification by substituting the correct name of the appellant's representative. (ii) Whether the order required further rectification by inserting an additional paragraph dealing with cited precedents and the contention based on the Drawback Rules, while the remaining alleged omissions called for no rectification.

Issue (i): The record showed that the appellant's authorised representative had been incorrectly named in the earlier order because the order sheet reflected a different name at the hearing. This constituted a mistake apparent from the record and was suitable for rectification.

Conclusion: The incorrect name was directed to be replaced with the correct name wherever it appeared in the earlier order, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): The Tribunal found that one of the contentions based on the Drawback Rules and the cited authorities had been placed in a typed note during the hearing and had escaped inclusion in the earlier order, so a supplementary paragraph was warranted. The cited decisions were also analysed as distinguishable because some related to the pre-amendment stage of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., while the present dispute arose in the post-amendment context involving Nickel Catalyst and activated bleaching earth. The remaining complaints were rejected because they had not been argued, did not disclose any mistake apparent on record, or would not alter the earlier conclusion. The scope of an exemption notification was held to depend on its own language and not on the Drawback Rules.

Conclusion: A further paragraph was directed to be added, but no rectification was granted on the remaining points, partly in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the representative's name and adding an omitted paragraph, while the other requested changes were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for a mistake apparent on the record, and an exemption notification must be construed on its own terms rather than by importing the scheme of the Drawback Rules.

---