Payment under protest by endorsement alone was sufficient; no apparent error justified rectification.

An endorsement of "duty paid under protest" can, by itself, establish payment under protest even without a separate protest letter when the endorsement is undisputed. Applying that principle, the Tribunal found no apparent error in its earlier final order and held that the record did not disclose any mistake warranting rectification. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid with an endorsement of "under protest" could be treated as payment under protest even in the absence of a separate letter of protest, and whether the record disclosed any mistake warranting rectification.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the relevant endorsement of "duty paid under protest" was not in dispute. It relied on the earlier view that the absence of a separate letter of protest does not, by itself, change the character of the payment when the endorsement clearly indicates protest. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the earlier final order did not suffer from any apparent error.

Conclusion: The payment was rightly treated as payment under protest, and no mistake apparent on the record was made out. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable.

---