Rectification for apparent contradiction in orders permitted where correction is clerical, not a substantive review of merits.

A rectification application can be maintained to correct a persisting apparent contradiction or clerical error in an order, provided the request does not amount to a substantive review of the merits. The Tribunal noted that an earlier rectification had corrected part of the mistake, but the order still remained inconsistent because it both upheld the impugned order and recorded that the appeal stood allowed. As the correction sought was limited to an apparent mistake on the record, further rectification was permitted. The second ROM application was allowed and the earlier order was further rectified without fresh adjudication of the underlying refund dispute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second ROM application was maintainable and whether the earlier order required further rectification for an apparent mistake on the face of the record.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier rectification order had corrected part of the error, but a contradiction still remained because the order both upheld the impugned order and recorded that the appeal stood allowed. The correction sought was confined to a clerical and apparent mistake, without seeking any fresh substantive reconsideration. On that basis, the Tribunal accepted that further rectification was warranted.

Conclusion: The second ROM application was allowed and the earlier order was further rectified.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings resulted in further correction of the earlier order in favour of Revenue, without any fresh adjudication on the underlying refund dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application may be entertained to remove a persisting apparent contradiction or clerical mistake in an order, provided it does not seek a substantive review of the merits.

---