Rectification cannot reopen factual findings or create rights from interim observations in credit disputes.

Rectification was unavailable because the grievances raised only reconsideration of factual findings and alleged errors not apparent from the record. A claimed adjournment request supported only by a photocopy did not establish any record-based mistake; an interim observation did not create a vested right to remand; endorsements on photocopies of plant copies of gate passes could not cure their invalidity for credit purposes; and alleged non-adherence to Board guidelines, having already been examined and rejected, did not disclose an apparent mistake. The rectification application was dismissed and the earlier order left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged non-consideration of the adjournment request warranted rectification; (ii) whether an observation in an interim order created a right to remand; (iii) whether endorsement on photocopies of plant copies of gate passes established eligibility for credit; and (iv) whether the alleged non-adherence to Board guidelines constituted a mistake apparent on the record.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged non-consideration of the adjournment request warranted rectification.

Analysis: The asserted adjournment request was supported only by a photocopy of a letter or fax message. The registry and court clerk recorded that no such request had been received, and no evidence was produced to establish delivery of the request to the registry.

Conclusion: The alleged failure to adjourn did not amount to a mistake apparent on the record.

Issue (ii): Whether an observation in an interim order created a right to remand.

Analysis: The earlier observation was made in an interim order and only indicated that remand could be considered if the original gate passes were produced. Such an observation did not confer any vested entitlement to remand, which had to be decided while disposing of the appeal.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to remand arose from the interim observation.

Issue (iii): Whether endorsement on photocopies of plant copies of gate passes established eligibility for credit.

Analysis: The documents produced were photocopies of the plant copy of the gate passes with endorsements of transfer. The earlier order had held that such plant copies were not valid documents for availing credit, and endorsement on an otherwise invalid document could not cure that defect.

Conclusion: The finding that the endorsed photocopies did not support the credit claim was upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the alleged non-adherence to Board guidelines constituted a mistake apparent on the record.

Analysis: The alleged violation of adjudication guidelines had already been considered and rejected by a reasoned finding. A possible error in that finding did not amount to an apparent mistake capable of rectification.

Conclusion: The contention did not disclose any mistake apparent on the record.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application failed on all the grounds urged and was dismissed, leaving the earlier order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is unavailable where the grievance only seeks reconsideration of factual findings or alleged errors that are not self-evident from the record.

---