Rectification of apparent error: overlooked proviso on delayed declaration for capital goods led to recall and restoration of appeals.

Rule 57T(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed to permit a declaration for capital goods even after receipt within the prescribed period, with delay capable of condonation by the Assistant Collector on sufficient cause. The earlier final order had proceeded on an incorrect premise that the declaration had to be filed before receipt of the goods, and it failed to consider the second proviso and the appellants' stand under it. That omission was treated as an apparent mistake on the face of the record, justifying recall of the order and restoration of the appeals for fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier final order suffered from an apparent mistake on the face of the record for overlooking the second proviso to Rule 57T(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the order was liable to be recalled and the appeals restored for fresh hearing.

Analysis: The second proviso to Rule 57T(1) permits filing of a declaration after receipt of capital goods within the prescribed period and, on sufficient cause being shown, enables condonation of delay by the Assistant Collector. The earlier order proceeded on the footing that the declaration had to be filed before receipt of the goods, which was an incorrect statement of the legal position. Since the relevant proviso and the appellants' stand under it were not considered, the error was held to be one apparent on the face of the record and correctable by recall.

Conclusion: The application for rectification was allowed, the earlier final order was recalled, and the appeals were restored for hearing.

---