Rectification based on overlooked letters was unsustainable where the original adjudication had already considered them.

The rectification dismissal was found unsustainable because the petitioner's letters had already been referred to and dealt with in the original adjudication order, so the finding of suppression of material facts could not be maintained. The Tribunal's premise that the letters were not before the adjudicating authority was therefore incorrect, and the order was set aside with the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the rectification application was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record on the ground that the relevant letters had not been brought to notice, and whether the matter required reconsideration.

Analysis: The letters relied on by the petitioner were found to have been referred to and dealt with in the original adjudication order. In that view, the finding that there had been suppression of material facts could not stand. The Tribunal's conclusion, based on the premise that the letters were not before the adjudicating authority, was therefore unsustainable and required interference.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

---