Mistake apparent on the record was not made out where penalty depended on remand proceedings in connected appeals.

The omission to record a separate finding on the applicant's submissions in a common final order was held not to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The matter arose from appeals based on the same impugned order and common facts, where the main order had already remanded the dispute for cross-examination of a witness. As the applicant's penalty for abetment under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on the outcome of the remand proceedings in the connected appeals, no separate error requiring rectification was established. Rectification was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-recording of a separate finding on the appellant's submissions in the earlier common final order constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The appeals had arisen from the same impugned order and common facts. The earlier final order had remanded the matter for cross-examination of a witness, and the allegation against the present applicant was one of abetment under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the main issues in the connected appeals were still to be reconsidered in remand proceedings, the sustainability of the penalty on the applicant would depend on the result of those proceedings. In that background, the omission to record a separate finding on his submissions did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the face of the record was made out, and rectification was not warranted.

---