Rectification cannot be used as a review when new facts are raised to reopen Tribunal findings.

A rectification petition cannot be used to reopen the merits of an earlier Tribunal order, reappraise evidence, or introduce fresh factual contentions. The Tribunal treated the request as a disguised review based on alleged higher wastage and scrap generation, noting that the earlier order had already addressed input and waste accounting and that the new factual basis had not been raised at the original hearing. Since a rectification application is limited to correcting an apparent mistake and cannot operate as a fresh appeal or review, the petition was held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification petition could be used to seek review of the Tribunal's earlier order by reappraising facts and introducing fresh factual contentions.

Analysis: The petition sought to reopen the merits of the appeal and to have the factual findings reconsidered on the basis of alleged higher wastage and scrap generation. Such a request amounted to a review of the earlier decision and not to correction of an apparent mistake. The Tribunal noted that its earlier order had already addressed the accounting of inputs and waste, and that the party had not advanced the factual contention now relied upon at the original hearing. A duly constituted bench's decision is not open to review on the ground that it is erroneous in fact or law, and the Tribunal has no power to review its own orders. A rectification application cannot be converted into a fresh appeal or used to admit new facts.

Conclusion: The rectification petition was not maintainable for re-examination of the merits and was rejected.

---