Rectification of final orders cannot rest on later statutory amendments absent an apparent mistake in the original order.

Rectification of a final order requires a clear, apparent mistake on the record; a later statutory amendment cannot retrospectively create a ground for correction where none existed when the order was passed. The goods had been cleared under approved classification and price lists, and the earlier final orders rested on binding Supreme Court authority and the facts then before the Tribunal. As no rectifiable error was shown in those orders, the petitions for rectification were rejected and the final orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had established any rectifiable mistake in the final orders so as to justify recall or correction; and whether a subsequent amendment in the statute could furnish a ground for rectification.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared pursuant to approved classification and price lists, and such clearances were treated as lawful under the relevant excise rules. The earlier final orders were based on binding Supreme Court decisions and, on the facts then before the Tribunal, no mistake was shown to have crept into those orders. A later amendment in the statute could not retrospectively supply a basis for rectification of an order that was correct when passed.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was made out, and the petitions for rectification were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the earlier final orders and maintained them intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be used to reopen a final order on the basis of a later statutory amendment when no apparent mistake is shown in the order as originally passed.

---