Mistake apparent on record cannot be used to revisit factual recital without fresh material showing legal error.

A rectification application was rejected where the applicant claimed the appellate order wrongly noted absence of registration. The Tribunal held that the paragraph in question merely recorded the facts as they existed at that stage, and the later obtaining of registration did not show any apparent mistake on the record. As no fresh material was produced to establish that customs law was inapplicable or that the earlier findings were legally flawed, no basis for recall or rectification was made out. The earlier order therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suffered from any mistake apparent on the record warranting rectification or recall.

Analysis: The application sought correction of the earlier appellate order on the ground that the first paragraph recorded absence of registration, whereas registration had been effected later. The Tribunal held that the paragraph merely summarised the facts as they then stood, that the alleged error did not constitute an apparent mistake, and that no further evidence had been produced to show non-applicability of customs law or flaw in the earlier findings.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on the record was established and the request for recall was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application failed, and the earlier order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual recital in an appellate order, when consistent with the record and unsupported by fresh material showing legal error, does not amount to a mistake apparent on the record warranting rectification or recall.

---