CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent and self-evident mistakes on the record, and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek review of an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's complaint of non-consideration of authorities and instructions was, in substance, an attempt to reargue the matter and revisit the decision, not a true rectifiable error. It also noted that a similar contention had already been rejected in an earlier miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed as an impermissible review request.
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent and self-evident mistakes on the record, and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek review of an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's complaint of non-consideration of authorities and instructions was, in substance, an attempt to reargue the matter and revisit the decision, not a true rectifiable error. It also noted that a similar contention had already been rejected in an earlier miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed as an impermissible review request.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
