Mistake apparent on record requires a patent error; refund findings on limitation and unjust enrichment were not rectifiable.

A mistake apparent on record for rectification must be an obvious, patent error and not one that requires detailed reasoning or admits two views. The article explains that refund-related findings based on record appreciation, including a part claim being time-barred and the remainder failing for unjust enrichment due to lack of proof that duty burden was not passed on, could not be treated as rectifiable. No patent error was shown, so rectification was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Final Order suffered from a mistake apparent on record warranting rectification, particularly on the questions of limitation of refund and unjust enrichment.

Analysis: A mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent error, not one requiring a long drawn process of reasoning or one on which two views are possible. The refund-related findings in the Final Order were based on appreciation of the record, including the conclusion that part of the claim was time-barred and the balance was hit by unjust enrichment for want of proof that the duty burden had not been passed on. Such a conclusion could not be treated as a rectifiable error.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on record was shown, and rectification was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The application for rectification was dismissed after holding that the impugned findings did not disclose any patent error.

Ratio Decidendi: A conclusion reached on appreciation of evidence, or on a debatable question of law, does not constitute a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

---