Rectification for penalty-rule misdescription fails absent a corrigendum correcting the original adjudication order.

Rectification was unavailable where the original adjudication order imposed penalty under Rule 25, even though Rule 26 was apparently intended, because no corrigendum had been issued to correct the order. In the absence of any correction in the record, the Tribunal found no apparent error in its earlier order that could be rectified. The rectification application was therefore rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application could be allowed on the ground that the penalty on the director was mentioned under Rule 25 instead of Rule 26, when no corrigendum had been issued correcting the original adjudication order.

Analysis: The original adjudicating authority had imposed the penalty under Rule 25, though the intended provision was Rule 26. The record showed that no corrigendum had been issued either at the time of the Tribunal's earlier order or thereafter. In the absence of any correction of the original order, there was no error apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order warranting rectification.

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

---