Mistake apparent from record standard bars rectification applications that seek reassessment of evidence or rehearing on merits.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to manifest, patent or glaring mistakes apparent from the record and cannot operate as review or revision. Allegations involving channel ownership, service classification, evidence, valuation, reimbursable expenses, limitation and the extended period require reassessment of findings or adoption of an alternative view, making them appealable rather than rectifiable errors. No non-consideration of admitted additional evidence, material omission, or binding authority establishing the alleged notice-service irregularity was identified. Accordingly, a rectification application cannot be used to rehear the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged errors in the final order constituted mistakes apparent from the record amenable to rectification.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to a manifest, patent or glaring error apparent on a mere reading of the record; it is neither a power of review nor revision. Errors requiring prolonged reasoning, reassessment of evidence, reconsideration of conclusions, or acceptance of an alternative view are judgmental and appealable errors, not rectifiable mistakes. The allegations concerning the ownership of channels, classification of services, evidentiary appreciation, valuation, reimbursable expenses, limitation and extended period sought reconsideration of matters already addressed in the final order. The record did not establish non-consideration of admitted additional evidence or any material omission. The authorities cited on service of notice did not lay down binding law on the asserted procedural irregularity and therefore disclosed no rectifiable error.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established; the rectification application was not maintainable as a means to rehear the appeal on merits.

---