Rectification under Section 35C(2) cannot reopen merits or debatable limitation issues after suppression findings.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to correcting an apparent mistake and cannot be used to reopen the merits, re-appreciate the record, or raise debatable questions of law or fact. An application claiming that limitation and invocation of the extended period were not separately recorded was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the rival submissions, upheld the demand, and found suppression of facts. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application under Section 35C(2) could be allowed on the ground that the Tribunal had not specifically recorded findings on the plea of limitation / invocation of the extended period.

Analysis: The application sought to re-open the merits of the earlier order by contending that the limitation ground had not been separately dealt with. The earlier order had already considered the rival submissions and affirmed the demand on the basis that the appellant was not the recipient of the service and had suppressed the relevant facts. Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to correcting an apparent mistake and cannot be used to introduce debatable questions of law or fact, or to seek re-appreciation of the record and a different conclusion.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---