TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of mistake in the final order disclosed any apparent error warranting correction.
Analysis: The applications sought reconsideration of the earlier order on the ground that certain case laws and written submissions were not adequately noticed. The Tribunal held that the original decision was rendered on the basis of the record, the parties' submissions, and a cumulative appreciation of facts and evidence relating to the date of commencement of commercial production for claim of area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. It observed that rectification is confined to a patent and self-evident error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to seek reappraisal of facts, evidence, or a review of the merits.
Conclusion: No apparent mistake was found in the final order, and the miscellaneous applications were not maintainable for rearguing the matter.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the earlier order failed, and the Tribunal declined to reopen the decision on the basis of the rectification applications.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification of mistake is available only for a patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review or reappreciation of facts and evidence.
TaxTMI 
