Rectification cannot reopen unargued issues; no apparent mistake exists where the Tribunal has become functus officio.

A rectification application cannot be used to raise a point that was not urged during the hearing, even if it appeared in the grounds of appeal. Mere omission of specific findings on cum-duty price and penalty does not amount to an apparent mistake when the issue was never argued. Once the appeal was disposed of, the Tribunal became functus officio and had no power to review its own decision. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application could succeed on the plea that the appellate order omitted findings on cum-duty price and penalty.

Analysis: The application sought recall of the appellate order on the ground that no specific finding had been recorded on cum-duty pricing and penalty. The Tribunal held that a point not urged during the hearing cannot be subsequently insisted upon in rectification, and that mere reference in the grounds of appeal is insufficient when the issue was not argued. It further held that there was no apparent mistake in the order, and that after disposal of the appeal the Tribunal had no power to review its own decision and had become functus officio.

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

---