Rectification requires an apparent record error; mere repetition of merits arguments against an interest order is insufficient.

Rectification under the tribunal's limited review jurisdiction requires a clear error apparent on the face of the record, not a re-argument of the merits. Here, the application challenged an earlier order on interest liability under the Central Excise Act, but the order had already noted the appellant's submissions, considered the cited authorities, and given reasons after interpreting Section 11A. As no specific mistake in the order was identified and the request merely repeated the appeal points, no apparent error was shown. The rectification application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any error apparent on the record in the Tribunal's earlier order so as to warrant correction.

Analysis: The application was directed against an earlier order dealing with demand of interest under Section 118 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The earlier order had recorded the submissions and cited authorities relied upon by the appellant, and thereafter given detailed reasons after interpreting Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant did not point out any specific mistake in the order; the request was essentially a reiteration of the appeal on merits. On that basis, no apparent error on the face of the record was shown.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the record was made out, and the rectification application was dismissed.

---