<?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>1995 (2) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83914</link>
    <description>Rectification under Section 35C is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record, and cannot be used to reopen a disputed issue or seek review of an earlier order. A contention requiring fresh examination of whether penalty was sustainable under Rule 151, especially where the point was not previously raised or decided, falls outside rectification. The Tribunal has no power to review its own order, so the application was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:27:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83914</link>
      <description>Rectification under Section 35C is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record, and cannot be used to reopen a disputed issue or seek review of an earlier order. A contention requiring fresh examination of whether penalty was sustainable under Rule 151, especially where the point was not previously raised or decided, falls outside rectification. The Tribunal has no power to review its own order, so the application was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>