ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 28-1-2019 (released on 5-3-2019) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and gone through the impugned order by which the rectification application filed by the respondent department has been allowed. The Tribunal in its order has held that order earlier passed by it suffered from mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to justify invocation of its power under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') so as to rectify such mistake. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very fact that the Tribunal was required to pass a lengthy order goes to show that it was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record, therefore, it required a detailed discussion to discover the mistake. Such mistake cannot be described as mistake apparent on the face of the record. Various judgments relied by the Tribunal are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur did not have the jurisdiction to issue. notice and this question was not at all gone into by this Court in vide judgment dated 27-1-2015 rendered in Writ Petition No. 2668/2007. It is argued that authorised representative of the department had agreed for remand of the matter on the aspect of the coverage of the dispute by judgment of Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.) and not on the question whether Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur had the competence to issue notice under Section 18(2) of the Act. Therefore, the very foundation of the impugned order is wrong. 4. The Tribunal has given detailed and weighty reasons to support its view that the order earlier passed by it suffered from mistake apparent on the face of the record. Two facts-that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur after detailed discussion on the issue recorded finding that he had requisite jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and that order of the Commissioner along with show cause notice was subjected to challenge before this Court, which had upheld the same, were not brought to its notice. Two facts-that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur after detailed discussion on the issue recorded finding that he had requisite jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and that order of the Commissioner along with show cause notice was subjected to challenge before this Court, which had upheld the same, were not brought to its notice. The Tribunal therefore held that these were material facts which were required to be brought to its notice at the time of hearing of the appeals and without bringing these facts to its notice, attempt was made to persuade the Tribunal to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority as in some cases, matters were remanded in view of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mangali lmpex Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal therefore held that consent was given by the authorised representative of the department against the record which necessitated recall of the final order for rehearing of the appeals on merits. The Tribunal in support of its view relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deva Metals Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax (UP), 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.); Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.); Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.); Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U. Ltd., 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C); Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee Limited, 2006 (198) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.) and; Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd., 2011 (270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C). 5. Having given our anxious consideration to submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order, as in any case the appeals are to be reheard now on merits. It would be still open to the petitioner to canvass before the Tribunal as to how this matter is covered by the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. (supra) and therefore was required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. If the Tribunal is persuaded, in that event, it would be passing order on merits of the case rather than on the basis of consent of the parties. 6. If the Tribunal is persuaded, in that event, it would be passing order on merits of the case rather than on the basis of consent of the parties. 6. In view of above, there is no merits in this writs petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Stay Application No. 4797/2019 also stands dismissed.