Mistake apparent on the record requires clear error, not a different reading of the statutory authorisation requirement.

A rectification request failed because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the Tribunal's earlier order. The dispute concerned whether the authorisation under Section 35B(2) was invalid, specifically whether the Additional Collector had applied his mind and recorded the necessary satisfaction that the impugned order was not legal or proper. The Tribunal held that later reliance on different decisions did not establish an apparent error, because the earlier order rested on the absence of the required statutory satisfaction, not merely on the absence of written reasons. The Revenue's rectification application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had shown a mistake apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's earlier order dismissing the appeal on the ground that the authorisation under Section 35B(2) was invalid.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the Tribunal's earlier view that the Additional Collector had not applied his mind and had not recorded that the impugned order was not legal or proper, as required by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the cited decisions did not show any error in its reasoning, since the previous order had not been based on the absence of written reasons alone, but on the failure to record the requisite satisfaction. A different interpretation of a statutory provision by another forum could not, by itself, establish an apparent error in the judgment.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the Revenue's rectification application was rejected.

---