https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81785 Rectification was permitted only for a clerical omission in the title portion of the final order, because the omitted counsel's name was an admitted error apparent on the face of the record and its insertion merely completed the record without affecting the merits. By contrast, no correction was allowed to add the word "million" after "US $ 33,621", because the underlying source document relied on in the order did not contain that term, so there was no apparent mistake in the record to rectify. The application therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of amending the title portion and was rejected on the remaining point. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:59:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81785 Rectification was permitted only for a clerical omission in the title portion of the final order, because the omitted counsel's name was an admitted error apparent on the face of the record and its insertion merely completed the record without affecting the merits. By contrast, no correction was allowed to add the word "million" after "US $ 33,621", because the underlying source document relied on in the order did not contain that term, so there was no apparent mistake in the record to rectify. The application therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of amending the title portion and was rejected on the remaining point. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81785