Non-adjudication of appeal grounds can amount to an apparent mistake, justifying recall and fresh hearing.

An appellate order that fails to decide material grounds specifically raised in the Revenue's appeal may be treated as containing an apparent mistake. Here, the Tribunal had addressed only the classification of chlorine tablets and omitted findings on other goods, duty computation, exemption benefits, and penalty. That omission justified rectification, so the earlier final order was recalled and the connected matters were restored for fresh hearing. The stated principle is that non-adjudication of issues expressly urged before the Tribunal can support recall in rectification proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's final order contained an apparent mistake warranting recall because it failed to adjudicate the Revenue's grounds relating to classification of certain goods, computation of duty, and penalty.

Analysis: The order on record showed that the original dispute and the Revenue's appeal covered multiple products and also challenged the computation of duty, the grant of exemption benefits, and the penalty. The final order had dealt only with the classification of chlorine tablets and had omitted findings on the remaining goods and on the Revenue's challenges to duty computation and penalty. Such omission from adjudication of issues specifically raised in appeal was treated as an apparent mistake in the order.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed, the earlier final order was recalled, and the matters were directed to be re-heard.

Final Conclusion: The earlier appellate order was set aside for reconsideration because material issues raised by the Revenue had not been decided, and the connected appeals were restored for fresh hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order that omits adjudication of issues specifically raised before the Tribunal contains an apparent mistake and can be recalled in rectification proceedings for re-hearing.

---