Error apparent on record fails where limitation already defeats the demand and remaining excise questions become academic.

The rectification request failed because no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The order had already found that the department was aware of the assessee's manufacture of M.M. monomers as an intermediate product, and on that basis held the demand time-barred; that finding went to the root of the demand's sustainability. Once limitation disposed of the matter, the remaining questions on duty liability became largely academic. The earlier view that M.M. monomers were marketable goods for excise purposes also provided no basis for interference, so rectification was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, and whether the remaining questions regarding duty on intermediate M.M. monomers survived after the finding on limitation.

Analysis: The order under rectification had already recorded a finding that the department was not unaware of the appellants' activities relating to manufacture of M.M. monomers as an intermediate product and, on that basis, held the demand to be barred by limitation. That finding went to the root of the demand's sustainability. In that backdrop, the remaining questions sought to be reopened became largely academic. The earlier observation that M.M. monomers were marketable and therefore goods for excise purposes also negatived the basis for interference.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The application for rectification was rejected.

---