Rectification under excise law is limited to apparent errors and cannot be used as a disguised review.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to correcting an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen the merits of an earlier order or seek recall for rehearing before a larger Bench. A request of that kind amounts to an impermissible review unless a specific, patent error is shown. Where the earlier order has already dealt with the issues and the case law relied upon, and no mistake is demonstrated, the rectification application is not maintainable and is rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application could be entertained in the absence of any mistake apparent from the record and whether the request for recall of the order amounted to an impermissible review.

Analysis: The scope of rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to correcting an obvious mistake apparent from the record. It does not permit reopening the merits of the earlier order or recalling it merely to secure a rehearing before a larger Bench. Since the earlier order had already dealt with the issues and the case law relied upon, no specific mistake in the order was shown.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---