Rectification cannot be used as review: Tribunal refused to reopen a final order, grant stay, or refer the matter larger Bench.

Rectification proceedings could not be used to revisit a final CEGAT order, because the alleged errors did not amount to any mistake apparent on the face of the record. Attempts to re-interpret the order on provisional assessment and duty adjustment would have required review, and the Tribunal had no power of review. A request to delete an adverse observation was also outside the limited scope of rectification. Stay could not be granted after the applicants had already pursued a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court, and a reference to a larger Bench was refused because the final order had already been delivered and the proper statutory remedy had been invoked. The miscellaneous applications were therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification, recall, stay, and reference to a larger Bench were maintainable after the final order had been passed.

Analysis: The claimed errors did not disclose any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The attempts to re-interpret the final order on provisional assessment and duty adjustment would amount to review, and the Tribunal had no power of review. A request to delete an adverse observation in the final order similarly exceeded the permissible scope of rectification. The prayer for stay could not be entertained once the applicants had already invoked the statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. The request for reference to a larger Bench was also rejected because the final order had already been delivered and the proper statutory remedy had been pursued.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that none of the requested reliefs was available in rectification proceedings, and the miscellaneous applications were not maintainable.

---