Rectification cannot be used as a disguised review when new facts and precedent were not part of the original record.

A rectification application cannot be used to introduce facts and a judicial pronouncement that were not placed before the Tribunal when the earlier order was passed. Entertaining such material would reopen the appeal on a new ground and, in substance, amount to a review rather than correction of a mistake apparent on the record. The Tribunal therefore held that a review cannot be sought in the guise of rectification and rejected the application as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application could be entertained on the basis of facts and a judicial pronouncement not placed before the Tribunal when the earlier order was made.

Analysis: The additional facts relied upon by the revenue had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of passing of the earlier order. Entertaining such material in a rectification proceeding would amount to reopening the appeal on a new ground and would, in substance, amount to a review of the order. A review cannot be sought in the guise of rectification of mistake.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---