Rectification power limited to patent errors only; debatable issues and merits cannot be reopened through a disguised review.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to patent, obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a disguised review or to reargue debatable questions of law or fact. The Tribunal noted that its earlier common order had already considered the material facts, submissions and authorities, and that the objections in the rectification application merely challenged the merits of those conclusions, including the interpretation of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and the limitation issue. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the rectification application was held not maintainable and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting amendment of the Tribunal's earlier common order.

Analysis: The rectification power under Section 35C(2) is confined to patent and obvious mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to review or reappreciation of the decision on debatable questions of law or fact. The Tribunal held that its earlier order had considered the material facts, submissions, and cited authorities, and that the objections raised in the application were directed essentially to the merits of the conclusions already reached, including the interpretation of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. and the limitation question. Such contentions did not disclose any patent error capable of rectification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out and the rectification application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The earlier common order remained undisturbed and the request to reopen it through rectification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification can be granted only for an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, and cannot be used as a disguised review to reconsider debatable issues already decided.

---