https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77406 Rectification under the Cenvat Credit Rules could not be used to reopen the merits of an earlier order or to introduce a precedent not cited at the hearing. The tribunal held that determining the amount payable under Rule 3(5A) necessarily involved classification of waste and scrap arising from used capital goods and identification of the applicable duty rate, since different capital goods may attract different rates. Omission to consider an un-cited decision could not justify rectification, because that would amount to review rather than correction of a mistake. The rectification application was therefore rejected and the prior order left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77406 Rectification under the Cenvat Credit Rules could not be used to reopen the merits of an earlier order or to introduce a precedent not cited at the hearing. The tribunal held that determining the amount payable under Rule 3(5A) necessarily involved classification of waste and scrap arising from used capital goods and identification of the applicable duty rate, since different capital goods may attract different rates. Omission to consider an un-cited decision could not justify rectification, because that would amount to review rather than correction of a mistake. The rectification application was therefore rejected and the prior order left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77406