Rectification requires a patent record error; uncited authorities and amended rules do not justify review in disguise.

No mistake apparent from the record was shown where rectification was sought on the ground that the show cause notice had been issued under Rule 9(2) rather than Section 11A. The Tribunal held that authorities not cited earlier could not be used to establish a patent error, and the amended rule already incorporated the limitation in Section 11A. The application would amount to review rather than rectification, so the request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order contained a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification, on the ground that the show cause notice was issued under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The application sought rectification of the Tribunal's earlier observation regarding the basis of the show cause notice. It was held that the authorities relied upon in support of the application had not been cited before the Tribunal earlier, and non-reference to an authority not placed before the Tribunal does not amount to a rectifiable mistake. The relevant rule had already been amended to incorporate the limitation contained in Section 11A, and on that basis no patent error was shown on the face of the record. The request would amount to review rather than rectification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established, and the rectification application was rejected.

---