Rectification on apparent mistake failed where the Tribunal had already considered cross-examination objections and demand arguments.

A rectification application under the ROM procedure can succeed only if the earlier order discloses an apparent mistake on the record, not where the applicant seeks to reargue the merits. The Tribunal found that the alleged omission, including objections on denial of cross-examination and the demand based on consignment notes, had already been considered in the earlier order, which had also given a reasoned finding sustaining the demand. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the ROM application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dated 09/01/2018 suffered from any apparent mistake on the record warranting rectification in the ROM application.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the alleged omission relied upon by the applicant had already been recorded in the earlier order, including the challenge to denial of cross-examination and the submissions on the demand based on consignment notes. The earlier order had also returned a reasoned finding on the disputed demand and held it to be sustainable. As the submissions and cited decisions had been considered before the finding was rendered, the grievance did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record. A rectification application cannot be used to reargue the merits of the concluded decision.

Conclusion: No apparent mistake was found in the earlier order and the ROM application was dismissed.

---