Rectification is confined to patent errors on the record; debatable issues and fresh material cannot support review-like relief.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to obvious and patent mistakes apparent from the existing record, and material not placed before the Tribunal at the original hearing cannot be introduced in such proceedings. A point that requires detailed reasoning or is merely debatable does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The contention that the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the appeal also failed because the grounds of appeal themselves covered both the remand and the validity of the revised classification action. The rectification application was therefore held not maintainable, and no rectifiable mistake was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for rectification of mistake was maintainable and whether the Tribunal's earlier order disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to obvious and patent mistakes apparent from the record. Material not placed before the Tribunal at the time of the original hearing cannot be relied upon in a rectification proceeding. A point requiring prolonged reasoning, or one that is at best debatable, does not constitute an error apparent on the record. The plea that the Tribunal had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal also failed because the grounds of appeal themselves challenged not only the remand but also the validity of the revised classification action. The record therefore did not disclose any rectifiable mistake.

Conclusion: The application for rectification was not maintainable and the alleged mistake was not established.

---