Retrospective statutory amendment cannot by itself justify rectification of a final order correct when passed.

A rectification of mistake application cannot succeed merely because a limitation provision in the Central Excise Act was later amended retrospectively. The Tribunal held that the final order was correct on the law prevailing when it was passed, and a subsequent statutory amendment does not by itself amount to a mistake warranting rectification. The application was therefore not maintainable and the earlier final order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a rectification of mistake application could be allowed merely because the statutory provision governing limitation in the Central Excise Act had been amended retrospectively after the final order was passed.

Analysis: The application sought recall of the earlier final order on the ground that the amendment to the limitation provision in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made by the Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effect, rendered the earlier decision incorrect. The Tribunal held that the final order had been passed in accordance with the law as it stood on the date of pronouncement and that a subsequent amendment of the statute cannot, by itself, constitute a mistake warranting rectification.

Conclusion: The rectification of mistake application was not maintainable on the basis of the later retrospective amendment and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier final order remained undisturbed, and no rectification was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent amendment of the statute cannot be treated as a mistake in a final order that was correct according to the law prevailing when it was passed.

---