Rectification for patent error only: new classification objections and circular-based arguments could not reopen the earlier order.

Rectification is confined to an evident mistake on the face of the record; it cannot be used to raise new objections or reargue matters requiring fresh examination. In the dispute over classification of fan regulators, the Tribunal held that the points based on the Board's circular, the effective date of the classification list, and the absence of a duty demand were not shown to have formed part of the earlier appeal and did not disclose any patent error in the prior order. The rectification request was therefore not a valid means to disturb the earlier determination, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any mistake apparent on the face of the record existed in the Tribunal's earlier order so as to warrant rectification in relation to classification of fan regulators. (ii) Whether the objections based on the Board's circular, the effective date of the classification list, and the absence of a duty demand could be entertained in the rectification proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether any mistake apparent on the face of the record existed in the Tribunal's earlier order so as to warrant rectification in relation to classification of fan regulators.

Analysis: The objections raised in the application were not shown to have formed the subject-matter of the earlier appeal. The classification list in question was a fresh list filed with effect from 17-03-1995, and the dispute concerned the correct classification of fan regulators on that basis. The grounds urged did not disclose any patent error in the earlier order.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the face of the record was established, and rectification was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the objections based on the Board's circular, the effective date of the classification list, and the absence of a duty demand could be entertained in the rectification proceedings.

Analysis: The effective date of the classification list was treated as operative from the date of filing, and reliance on the Board's circular did not vitiate the earlier determination. The argument based on demand was also found inapplicable in the rectification proceeding. The precedent relied upon was held not to apply on the facts, and the points had not been raised in the memorandum of appeal.

Conclusion: These objections were not a valid basis for rectification.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed and the rectification application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for an evident mistake on the face of the record, and arguments not forming part of the original appeal or requiring fresh examination cannot be introduced through such proceedings.

---