Rectification cannot serve as review; classification challenges and fresh exemption claims were rejected, while limitation was remanded for reconsideration.

Rectification was confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and could not be used to reopen the classification of grinding media balls, so reclassification was refused. The limitation plea had been raised but not examined earlier, so it required fresh consideration by the Commissioner and the matter was remanded on that issue. Small-scale exemption and Modvat credit could not be introduced for the first time in rectification proceedings because they involved fresh substantive claims needing factual examination, so those claims were not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rectification could be used to reopen the classification of grinding media balls; (ii) whether the plea of time bar required remand for fresh decision; (iii) whether small-scale exemption and Modvat credit could be granted in rectification proceedings though not raised earlier.

Issue (i): whether rectification could be used to reopen the classification of grinding media balls.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The classification issue had already been decided after considering the submissions of both sides and the relevant chapter note. A plea seeking a different classification on the merits amounted to a review of the earlier order, which is outside the scope of rectification.

Conclusion: Reclassification was refused and the request was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the plea of time bar required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The record showed that limitation had been raised in the appeal grounds, but it had not been examined at the adjudication stage. As the issue had not received a finding, it required consideration by the jurisdictional Commissioner on merits.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the issue of time bar.

Issue (iii): whether small-scale exemption and Modvat credit could be granted in rectification proceedings though not raised earlier.

Analysis: Rectification proceedings cannot be expanded to decide fresh substantive claims requiring factual examination, especially when those claims were not raised in the original appeal or arguments.

Conclusion: The claims for small-scale exemption and Modvat credit were not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only on the limitation issue, resulting in remand to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on time bar, while the attempt to reopen classification and to introduce fresh exemption and credit claims was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be used as a substitute for review or to raise new substantive claims; only an issue already raised but not adjudicated, such as limitation, may justify remand for fresh determination.

---