Error apparent on the record cannot justify restoring a voluntarily withdrawn appeal absent any mistake in the tribunal's order.

Error apparent on the record must be an error in the Tribunal's own order, not a mistaken assumption or later change of mind by a party who voluntarily withdrew the appeal. Where dismissal followed the appellant's considered written request for withdrawal after time to reconsider, the appeal could not be restored merely because the appellant later sought recall on that basis. The Tribunal also held that authorities on rectification concerned correction of mistakes in orders or consequential relief after rectification, and did not support restoration of a withdrawn appeal. As no mistake in the Tribunal's order was shown, the request for restoration was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal dismissed as withdrawn could be restored on the ground that the appellant's decision to withdraw was based on an alleged error apparent on the record, and whether such a request could be treated as an application for rectification under the Tribunal's powers.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the expression "error apparent on the record" must relate to an error in the Tribunal's order itself, and not to a mistaken assumption or change of mind on the part of the appellant which led to the request for withdrawal. The earlier dismissal order had been made only because the appellant, after being given time to reconsider, sent a considered written request seeking withdrawal. The Tribunal also distinguished the authorities cited on rectification, holding that they dealt with correction of mistakes in orders or consequential relief after rectification, not with restoration of an appeal voluntarily withdrawn by the party. As no mistake in the Tribunal's own order was shown, the claimed ground for recall did not arise.

Conclusion: The request for restoration was rejected and the appeal was not restored.

---