https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89553 A rectification request failed because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the Tribunal's earlier order. The dispute concerned whether the authorisation under Section 35B(2) was invalid, specifically whether the Additional Collector had applied his mind and recorded the necessary satisfaction that the impugned order was not legal or proper. The Tribunal held that later reliance on different decisions did not establish an apparent error, because the earlier order rested on the absence of the required statutory satisfaction, not merely on the absence of written reasons. The Revenue's rectification application was rejected. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:39:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89553 A rectification request failed because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the Tribunal's earlier order. The dispute concerned whether the authorisation under Section 35B(2) was invalid, specifically whether the Additional Collector had applied his mind and recorded the necessary satisfaction that the impugned order was not legal or proper. The Tribunal held that later reliance on different decisions did not establish an apparent error, because the earlier order rested on the absence of the required statutory satisfaction, not merely on the absence of written reasons. The Revenue's rectification application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89553