Rectification on apparent error and reference on question of law both failed where parties sought reopening of factual findings.

Rectification is confined to an obvious and self-evident error on the face of the record, and cannot be used to reargue factual findings or seek review of the Tribunal's earlier decision. The objections raised required reconsideration of evidence and prior conclusions, so no apparent mistake was shown and rectification failed. A reference lies only where a genuine question of law arises from the decision; here, the grounds concerned factual controversies about RG-1 entry, documentary evidence, quality-control stickers, delayed records, and alleged suppression, all already addressed below. No referable question of law survived, so the reference application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of the Tribunal disclosed any apparent mistake warranting rectification under the rectification provision. (ii) Whether the miscellaneous reference application raised any question of law fit for reference.

Issue (i): Whether the order of the Tribunal disclosed any apparent mistake warranting rectification under the rectification provision.

Analysis: The objections raised sought reconsideration of factual findings and reappraisal of the earlier order rather than correction of a glaring or obvious error. A mistake apparent from the record must be self-evident and not one that requires a long process of reasoning or two possible views. The points urged were therefore in the nature of review, which the Tribunal had no power to undertake.

Conclusion: No apparent mistake from the record was shown, and the request for rectification failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the miscellaneous reference application raised any question of law fit for reference.

Analysis: The grounds urged related to the stage of RG-1 entry, the treatment of documentary evidence, the quality-control stickers, the alleged belated production of records, and the inference of suppression. On examination, these were found to be factual controversies already dealt with by the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice covered the relevant allegations, that the accounting requirement for the scooters was properly dealt with, and that the cited authorities did not create any unanswered legal issue. No substantive question of law survived for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the reference application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed because they sought reopening of concluded factual findings rather than correction of an evident error or determination of a legal question, and the matter was finally rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to an obvious and self-evident error on the face of the record, and a reference lies only where a genuine question of law arises from the decision.

---