Rectification for mistake apparent on record fails where the issue was already decided under binding manufacture law.

A rectification application failed because no mistake apparent on the record was shown in the final order. The applicant argued that certain submissions had not been separately discussed, but the order had already examined the relevant factual process and applied the governing law on manufacture, including Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the statutory definition of manufacture. As the issue had been decided in line with binding Supreme Court authority, the absence of separate discussion on every submission did not amount to a patent error warranting rectification or recall. The rejection of rectification was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application for rectification disclosed any mistake apparent on the record in the final order so as to justify rectification and recall.

Analysis: The application was founded on the allegation that certain submissions in the earlier order had not been separately discussed while deciding the same issue. The record showed, however, that the earlier order had already addressed the relevant factual process and had applied the governing law on manufacture, including the effect of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the definition of manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the impugned order had followed the binding Supreme Court position on the issue and had adopted the same view, the alleged omission did not disclose any patent error requiring rectification. Non-discussion of each submission, where the issue itself stood decided on the basis of the applicable law, was not treated as a mistake apparent on the record.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the record was made out, and the rectification application was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application cannot succeed merely because some submissions were not separately adverted to, where the underlying issue has already been decided in conformity with binding law and no patent error is shown on the face of the record.

---