Rectification cannot reopen discount eligibility findings where no apparent error exists and factual reassessment is sought.

Rectification proceedings cannot be used to reopen merits or re-appreciate evidence on discount eligibility and valuation. The Tribunal held that only a patent or apparent error can be corrected, so objections to reliance on earlier decisions, dealer statements, and factual findings on whether discounts were uniformly passed on were not maintainable. A textual mistake relating to the cited MRF judgment was corrected, but that did not alter the substantive conclusion because prior knowledge of discount before removal, established trade practice, or an agreement for such discount was not shown on the record. The application was therefore rejected to the extent it sought review, with only the limited correction allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application disclosed any patent or apparent error in the final order warranting substantive alteration of the findings on discount eligibility and valuation.

Analysis: The application primarily sought reconsideration of the merits by challenging the reliance placed on earlier decisions, the appreciation of dealer statements, and the finding that the discounts were neither uniformly passed on nor established as prior trade discounts. The apparent error concerning the cited MRF judgment was acknowledged and corrected, but the correction did not affect the substantive conclusion because the eligibility of discount still depended on prior knowledge before removal, established trade practice, or an agreement to that effect, none of which was found on the record. The challenge to the Larger Bench decision and the objection to reliance on the Auto Lamp decision were rejected as attempts to reopen factual findings and re-appreciate evidence, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings. The Tribunal also held that the claim of passing discounts to buyers was unsupported by evidence and that the record showed arbitrary discounting without prior intimation to dealers.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the record was made out, and the rectification application was not maintainable to the extent it sought review of the merits; only the limited textual correction was allowed.

---