Rectification requires an obvious error on the record; debatable refund and limitation issues were not enough.

Questions on limitation under section 11B, refund based on duty paid under protest, and admission of additional evidence were not treated as arising from the rectification order because they related to the merits decided earlier. The claim that the refund was consequential to the earlier Tribunal order was also not accepted, as that contention had not been shown to have been raised previously and the earlier order was understood to have remanded the matter for a different period. The purported error was therefore regarded as debatable rather than a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and no referable question of law or rectifiable mistake was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions proposed by the assessee arose from the rectification order and disclosed any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting reference or rectification.

Analysis: The questions concerning limitation under section 11B, refund on the basis of duty paid under protest, and admission of additional evidence were held not to arise from the rectification order, because they related to the merits already decided in the earlier order. On the remaining question, the claim that the refund was consequential to the earlier Tribunal order was not shown to have been urged earlier, and in any event the Tribunal had found that the earlier order merely remanded the matter for a different period. The issue was therefore treated as debatable and not as an obvious error on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No referable question of law or rectifiable mistake was established, and the assessee's application failed.

---