Rectification of mistake requires an apparent error on the record; it cannot be used to reopen a concluded dismissal.

Rectification of mistake is available only for a patent, self-evident error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen findings through reappreciation of facts or a broader factual history. Here, the earlier dismissal of the departmental appeal as infructuous rested on the record showing that refund had already been sanctioned. The subsequent attempt sought to revisit that conclusion by relying on later proceedings and the Revenue's own acceptance of the sequence of events, but this did not reveal any apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order. The rectification application was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for rectification of mistake was maintainable on the ground that the earlier dismissal of the departmental appeal as infructuous was based on an apparent error from the record.

Analysis: Rectification of mistake lies only where the error is self-evident from the record and does not require reappreciation of facts or a detailed reconsideration of the controversy. The record showed that the earlier dismissal of the departmental appeal was based on the fact that refund had already been sanctioned, and the attempt in the present application was to reopen the matter by relying on a larger factual history and on the department's own acceptance of subsequent proceedings. Such contentions did not disclose any patent mistake in the Tribunal's earlier order; at most, they reflected the Revenue's dissatisfaction with the result and the factual sequence in the case. An error, if any, was not attributable to the Tribunal's order in a manner that could be corrected under rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The application for rectification of mistake was not maintainable and was rejected.

---