Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent errors and cannot be used for review or re-appreciation of evidence.

Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent, manifest and self-evident errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used as a disguised review. A miscellaneous application seeking recall or modification of a final order was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the arguments cumulatively and had remanded the matter for de novo adjudication in light of Supreme Court law. The contentions on limitation, extended period and taxability required re-appreciation of evidence and law, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings. No mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown, so the recall request was not maintainable and the remand order remained intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the final order disclosed any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting recall or modification of the order.

Analysis: The application sought reconsideration of several factual and legal contentions said to have been omitted from the earlier order, including limitation, applicability of extended period, and taxability of the services in question. The Tribunal held that the earlier final order had already considered the arguments cumulatively and had remanded the matter for de novo adjudication in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It further held that rectification cannot be used as a disguise for review, and that only patent, manifest and self-evident errors can be corrected under the rectification jurisdiction. The grievances raised required re-appraisal of evidence and law, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the request for recall or reconsideration was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application was rejected, leaving the earlier remand order intact and permitting the applicant to raise the disputed contentions before the adjudicating authority in the de novo proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is confined to patent errors apparent on the record and cannot be invoked to seek review or re-appreciation of evidence and arguments already considered.

---