Rectification limits in tax disputes: later uncited rulings cannot reopen a matter already covered by larger bench precedent.

A rectification application failed where the Tribunal held that its earlier decision was based on the assessee's own admission and the larger bench ruling in Machine Builders, which already covered the dispute against the assessee. It further found that the expressions in that ruling were broad enough to include the phrase "nil duty paid" in Notification No. 202/88, so no apparent mistake arose from its application. A later decision not cited at the original hearing could not support rectification, and the application was treated as an impermissible attempt to reargue the matter and obtain review. No rectifiable error was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order could be rectified on the ground that the earlier decision had wrongly applied a larger bench ruling and failed to consider a later cited decision, and whether the application was in substance an impermissible review.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that its earlier decision rested on the assessee's own admission and on the larger bench ruling in Machine Builders, and that the issue in the appeal had already been treated as covered against the assessee by that ruling. It further held that the expressions considered in that ruling were broad enough to cover the phrase "nil duty paid" used in Notification No. 202/88 dated 20-5-1988, so no mistake existed in applying it. The Tribunal also held that a decision not cited at the earlier hearing could not found a rectification claim, and that the application was in substance an attempt to reargue the matter and seek review.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was established and the rectification application was dismissed.

---