<?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>1991 (5) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81332</link>
    <description>No mistake apparent from the record was shown where rectification was sought on the ground that the show cause notice had been issued under Rule 9(2) rather than Section 11A. The Tribunal held that authorities not cited earlier could not be used to establish a patent error, and the amended rule already incorporated the limitation in Section 11A. The application would amount to review rather than rectification, so the request was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:24:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81332</link>
      <description>No mistake apparent from the record was shown where rectification was sought on the ground that the show cause notice had been issued under Rule 9(2) rather than Section 11A. The Tribunal held that authorities not cited earlier could not be used to establish a patent error, and the amended rule already incorporated the limitation in Section 11A. The application would amount to review rather than rectification, so the request was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>