<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (5) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72730</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed an application by M/s Shree Laxmi Textile Mills to amend an order under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The applicants sought rectification based on a Trade Notice and a Bombay High Court judgment, arguing for a lower duty rate. However, the Tribunal held that the errors were not apparent from the record and were not raised during the original appeal, making the application ineligible for rectification. Member H.R. Syiem&#039;s separate judgment cautioned against allowing post-order submissions to avoid multiple re-hearings and conflicting decisions. The Editor&#039;s Comments stressed that rectification should address mistakes evident on record, not serve as a platform for re-argument.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 16:48:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72730</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed an application by M/s Shree Laxmi Textile Mills to amend an order under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The applicants sought rectification based on a Trade Notice and a Bombay High Court judgment, arguing for a lower duty rate. However, the Tribunal held that the errors were not apparent from the record and were not raised during the original appeal, making the application ineligible for rectification. Member H.R. Syiem&#039;s separate judgment cautioned against allowing post-order submissions to avoid multiple re-hearings and conflicting decisions. The Editor&#039;s Comments stressed that rectification should address mistakes evident on record, not serve as a platform for re-argument.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>