Rectification of Tribunal order must address omitted submissions; failure to do so can justify remand for fresh hearing.

A rectification application under Section 35C(2) must specifically address the contention that material factual and legal submissions were made before the Tribunal but omitted from the order. Where the rectification order fails to deal with that central plea, the higher forum cannot resolve the issue by inference, and the matter may be set aside. If the same Members are no longer available and the procedure requires the rectification to be heard by the same Members, remand of the appeal for fresh hearing is appropriate to avoid prejudice. The adverse tribunal orders were therefore quashed to that extent and the appeal sent back for reconsideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the rectification application was liable to be set aside for failure to consider the specific contention that material submissions had been made before the Tribunal, and whether the appeal was required to be remanded for fresh hearing.

Analysis: The record showed that the impugned tribunal order did not set out the parties' submissions in any meaningful manner, while the rectification application specifically asserted that certain factual and legal points had been urged but not dealt with. The order on rectification did not address that central contention at all. In such circumstances, the higher forum could not decide by inference whether those submissions were actually made. Since the rectification remedy under Section 35C(2) was meant to correct mistakes apparent from the record, the tribunal was required to decide the specific plea raised before it. As the same members were no longer available and the procedural rules required the rectification application to be heard by the same members, remand of the appeal itself was the appropriate course to avoid prejudice.

Conclusion: The order on rectification was set aside and the tribunal's order in the appeal was quashed insofar as it related to the appellant's appeal, with the appeal remanded for fresh hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained a partial procedural victory, as the adverse tribunal orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on merits, leaving all substantive contentions open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rectification application specifically alleges that material submissions recorded as omitted were actually made, the adjudicating authority must decide that contention; failure to do so justifies setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration where procedural requirements cannot otherwise be satisfied.

---