Rectification only for apparent record errors; omission of a finding or remand in connected matters is not enough.

Rectification is confined to an obvious error apparent from the record, not a request to reconsider the merits or supply a fresh finding. The Tribunal found no rectifiable error in its earlier order because the lower appellate authority had not recorded any independent finding on concessional duty under Sl. No. 3(i) of Notification No. 21/95-C.E., so nothing was omitted that required correction. It also held that no separate finding on tyre size 195/65-R-15 was necessary in the rectification context, since the connected matters had already been remanded for fresh decision. The rectification application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's earlier order for not recording a separate finding on eligibility to concessional duty under Sl. No. 3(i) of Notification No. 21/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995. (ii) Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record in not recording a separate finding regarding tyre size 195/65-R-15 in view of the remand made in the connected matter.

Issue (i): Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's earlier order for not recording a separate finding on eligibility to concessional duty under Sl. No. 3(i) of Notification No. 21/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995.

Analysis: The lower appellate authority had not given any independent finding on the claim under Sl. No. 3(i) and had dealt only with the other cited entry in the notification. In that situation, the earlier Tribunal order did not omit any adjudication that was required to be made on the material before it, and no apparent mistake could be said to exist.

Conclusion: No rectifiable error was shown on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record in not recording a separate finding regarding tyre size 195/65-R-15 in view of the remand made in the connected matter.

Analysis: Since the connected cases had already been remanded for fresh decision by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, a separate conclusive finding by the Tribunal on that tyre size was not called for in the rectification context. The absence of such a finding therefore did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: No rectifiable error was shown on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application failed because no error apparent on the face of the record was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification lies only for an obvious error apparent from the record, and where the lower authority has not rendered the alleged omitted finding or the matter has already been remanded, the absence of a further finding does not constitute such an error.

---