https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81768 Rectification was refused because no mistake apparent from the record was shown. The Tribunal held that the original challenge concerned the Additional Collector's order permitting substitution of the bill of entry, and that order had already been sustained on the basis that the Assistant Collector's action under Section 46(5) of the Customs Act lacked the attributes of an adjudication order and was therefore not amenable to review. The later remark on the effective date of the notification was only incidental, and in the absence of evidence from the competent authority on public availability of the notification, no patent error could be established. The prior order therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:13:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81768 Rectification was refused because no mistake apparent from the record was shown. The Tribunal held that the original challenge concerned the Additional Collector's order permitting substitution of the bill of entry, and that order had already been sustained on the basis that the Assistant Collector's action under Section 46(5) of the Customs Act lacked the attributes of an adjudication order and was therefore not amenable to review. The later remark on the effective date of the notification was only incidental, and in the absence of evidence from the competent authority on public availability of the notification, no patent error could be established. The prior order therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 29 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81768