Rectification jurisdiction cannot reopen an ex parte stay order absent an apparent error on the face of the record.

Rectification under Rule 31A was confined to correcting an apparent mistake on the face of the record and could not be used to reopen a reasoned ex parte stay order or to substitute for an application to set it aside. Notices had been issued to the correspondence address furnished in the appeal papers, and no affidavit showed any change of address or disclosure of a residential address for service. As no patent error of fact or law was shown, the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous applications and left the stay order undisturbed, including the partial pre-deposit, waiver of the balance, and stay of recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether miscellaneous applications under Rule 31A of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules were maintainable for rectification of the stay order on the ground that the appellants were not served with notice on their residential addresses and the stay order was passed ex parte.

Analysis: The address furnished in the memos of appeal and stay applications was the correspondence address, and notices were issued accordingly. No affidavit was filed to show that the appellants had changed address or that the Tribunal was informed of any residential address for service. The challenge did not disclose any patent error of fact or law apparent on the face of the stay order. An application for rectification could not be used as a substitute for seeking setting aside of an ex parte order. The Tribunal had already considered the matter on merits, granted time for pre-deposit, and imposed only partial deposit with waiver of the balance and stay of recovery.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications were not maintainable as applications for rectification and were liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: The stay order remained undisturbed and the appellants were not granted relief in the rectification proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is confined to correcting an apparent mistake on the face of the record and cannot be invoked to challenge a reasoned order on the ground of alleged non-service or to reopen the merits of an ex parte stay order.

---