Rectification application dismissed by Tribunal for challenging Final Order's merits, not rectifying clear mistake. .

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application seeking correction of a Final Order, stating that no error of law was apparent on the face of the record. It was determined that the application aimed at challenging the Final Order's merits rather than rectifying a clear mistake. The denial of credit based on invoices in individuals' names was upheld, emphasizing that the rectification application exceeded the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The application was dismissed, with the Tribunal highlighting that the modifications sought related to the case's substance, falling outside the scope of rectification proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order containing error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis:
The Applicant sought rectification of a Final Order dated 30.11.2016, contending that it contained an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Applicant specifically pointed out an invoice issued by Cushman and Wakefield in the name of the co-owner, which was not considered by the Tribunal, leading to the denial of credit. The Applicant argued that Rule 9(2) mandates that credit cannot be denied based on the name on the invoice as long as it contains necessary details. The Applicant's representative emphasized that the denial of credit was solely due to the invoices being in the names of individuals, which was incorrect.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal deliberated on the contentions. The Applicant's representative reiterated that the denial of credit was unjust as the invoices contained all required information, despite being in the names of individuals. Conversely, the AR for the Respondent contended that there were no apparent errors in the Final Order warranting rectification. The AR suggested that any dissatisfaction with the Final Order should be addressed through an appeal to the High Court, indicating that the rectification application aimed at reviewing the Final Order, exceeding the Tribunal's rectification jurisdiction.

Following a thorough review of submissions and the Final Order, the Tribunal, represented by Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member, concluded that no error was evident on the face of the record necessitating correction through the rectification application. The Tribunal highlighted that the application's intent seemed to challenge the Final Order's merits, which fell outside the purview of rectification proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, emphasizing that the sought modifications pertained to the case's substance, exceeding the rectification scope. The operative part of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 05/09/2017.

---