https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87320 Rectification proceedings under the Central Excise Act cannot be used to reargue concluded factual findings or seek a disguised review of an earlier decision. Objections on cross-examination, disputed invoices, documentary endorsements, employee statements, cited precedent, Rule 9A(5) and penalty were treated as issues already decided on evidence and not as errors apparent on the record. Because the proposed reference raised only factual disputes and no genuine question of law, the reference application was held not maintainable and the earlier order was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:21:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87320 Rectification proceedings under the Central Excise Act cannot be used to reargue concluded factual findings or seek a disguised review of an earlier decision. Objections on cross-examination, disputed invoices, documentary endorsements, employee statements, cited precedent, Rule 9A(5) and penalty were treated as issues already decided on evidence and not as errors apparent on the record. Because the proposed reference raised only factual disputes and no genuine question of law, the reference application was held not maintainable and the earlier order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87320