Rectification for apparent error rejected where captive use and notification benefit were not shown on the record.

Rectification of a final order was refused because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown. The appellant's own appeal materials proceeded on the basis that the specified goods were captively used within the factory, while the departmental case was that black tea and packet tea were manufactured in different units and did not qualify for the concession under Notification No. 217/86. The order had been dictated in court in the presence of counsel, and no cross-objection was filed. On these facts, the request for rectification was correctly rejected and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record in the final order warranting rectification, and whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant's own statement of facts and grounds of appeal had proceeded on the basis that the specified goods were captively used within the factory of production, while the departmental case was that black tea and packet tea were manufactured in different units and therefore did not qualify for the concession. The order had been dictated in court in the presence of the appellant's advocate, and no cross-objection had been filed. On these facts, no apparent error on the face of the record was made out.

Conclusion: The application for rectification of mistake was rightly rejected, and the assessee did not obtain relief.

---