Rectification jurisdiction cannot reopen merits; only patent errors apparent on the record can be corrected.

Rectification jurisdiction is limited to correcting obvious errors apparent on the record, such as typographical, arithmetical, calculation mistakes, or a patent omission; it cannot be used to reopen the merits or substitute a different view. A challenge asserting that the earlier order wrongly applied the amendment to Section 73 retrospectively was treated as a merits-based , not a rectifiable mistake. The Tribunal therefore declined to revisit its final order, held the rectification applications not maintainable, and left the earlier demand-related adjudication undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applications for rectification of the final order disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant correction under the rectification jurisdiction.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to obvious mistakes such as typographical, arithmetical, or calculation errors, and may extend only to a patent omission or disregard of a settled legal principle. A party's dissatisfaction with the reasoning adopted in the earlier order does not amount to an error apparent on the record. Reconsideration of the merits would amount to a rehearing, which is not permissible in the guise of rectification. The alleged grievance that the earlier order had applied the amendment to Section 73 retrospectively was, therefore, only a challenge to the merits of the decision and not a rectifiable mistake.

Conclusion: The rectification applications were not maintainable and were rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to reopen its earlier decision through rectification and left the demand-related adjudication undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to seek a rehearing on merits or to substitute a different view for the one already taken; only a patent error apparent on the record can be corrected.

---