Rectification requires an apparent error on the face of the record; recorded submissions are not findings, and limitation was independently decided.

A passage that merely records an assessee's submissions cannot be treated as a finding capable of rectification, and no mistake apparent from the record arises where the final order separately rests on independent reasons. The CESTAT noted that the disputed paragraph only reflected arguments about departmental awareness of the captive generation and synchronizing arrangement, while the order's limitation finding was based on interpretation of law, bona fide belief, and absence of reliable evidence of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or collusion. Accordingly, the application for rectification failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in the final order on the ground that the observations regarding the letter dated 15.11.2000 and the reply thereto were allegedly erroneous, and whether the finding that the extended period of limitation was not sustainable called for rectification.

Analysis: The impugned paragraph merely recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee that the department was aware of the captive generation and synchronizing arrangement, that an inquiry had been made by the department, and that a reply had been furnished. It did not record any affirmative finding on that factual aspect. The later paragraph gave independent reasons for rejecting invocation of the extended period, namely that the dispute turned on interpretation of law, there was bona fide belief, and there was no reliable evidence of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or collusion with intent to evade duty. In such circumstances, the challenge did not disclose any apparent error in the order.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out, and the request for rectification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A passage that only records party submissions cannot be treated as a judicial finding for the purpose of rectification, and an order cannot be reopened in the absence of an apparent error on the face of the record.

---