https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91307 A patent inconsistency between the recorded facts and the stated limitation basis in an order under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 constitutes a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The earlier reasoning referred both to credit being taken six months after receipt of inputs and to a six-month period from the date of the show cause notice, creating a material mismatch. The error was therefore amenable to rectification, and the order was corrected to state that the relevant limitation period was six months from the date of receipt of the inputs. The rectification application was granted in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:14:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91307 A patent inconsistency between the recorded facts and the stated limitation basis in an order under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 constitutes a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The earlier reasoning referred both to credit being taken six months after receipt of inputs and to a six-month period from the date of the show cause notice, creating a material mismatch. The error was therefore amenable to rectification, and the order was corrected to state that the relevant limitation period was six months from the date of receipt of the inputs. The rectification application was granted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91307