Rectification of record: reference to an uncited but relevant prior decision was not a mistake apparent on the record.

A rectification request under the Central Excise Rules challenged the Tribunal's earlier order on the ground that it referred to an earlier decision not cited by either party. The Tribunal held that reliance on a relevant prior decision already noticed and discussed in the order did not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. As the issue had been considered in the context of Rule 57F and credit under Rule 57A, no rectifiable error was shown. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable on the ground urged and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier final order suffered from any rectifiable mistake because it referred to and relied upon an earlier decision not cited by either party, so as to justify rectification of the order.

Analysis: The application under rectification sought to treat the Tribunal's reference to its earlier decision as an error. The matter turned on the interpretation of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in the context of credit availed under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that the relevant case law had already been noticed and discussed in the earlier order, and that a reference to an earlier binding or relevant decision, even if not specifically cited during arguments by either side, did not amount to a mistake in the final order. The Tribunal found no error apparent warranting rectification.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable on the ground urged and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal does not commit a rectifiable mistake by referring to and relying upon a relevant earlier decision on the same subject merely because that decision was not cited by either party, where the issue has been duly considered and discussed.

---