Rectification cannot be used for review, but apparent procedural and evidentiary errors may still be corrected.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to review the Tribunal's findings on excisability, which must be challenged in appeal. The application was therefore not maintainable to the extent it sought reconsideration of the merits, including the treatment of the Section 11C representation. However, apparent mistakes were made where the applicants were not given adequate opportunity to address reliance on Maurice Morton's Rubber Technology, the Tribunal did not deal with the objection that sample test reports were not supplied despite request, and it misapplied the earlier rejection of evidence concerning Dr. R.K. Matthan's certificate and Mr. W.E. Tessmer's letter. Relief was limited to those rectifiable errors.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for rectification of mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's final order and warranted partial rehearing.

Analysis: The application could not be used to seek a review of the Tribunal's findings on excisability, since such a challenge lies in appeal and not in rectification proceedings. The Tribunal held that no rectifiable error arose from its treatment of the representation made to the CBEC under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as any grievance therefrom went to the merits and not to an apparent mistake. However, the record showed that the applicants had not been given an adequate opportunity to meet the reliance placed on extracts from Maurice Morton's Rubber Technology, and the Tribunal had also failed to deal with the contention that the test reports of the disputed samples were not supplied despite request. An error was also found in the treatment of the certificate of Dr. R.K. Matthan and the letter of Mr. W.E. Tessmer after the admissibility of that evidence had earlier been rejected.

Conclusion: The rectification application was maintainable only to the limited extent of correcting the apparent errors relating to denial of opportunity and non-consideration of the pleaded objections; the request to revisit the merits of excisability was not accepted.

---