https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92596 The omission to record a separate finding on the applicant's submissions in a common final order was held not to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The matter arose from appeals based on the same impugned order and common facts, where the main order had already remanded the dispute for cross-examination of a witness. As the applicant's penalty for abetment under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on the outcome of the remand proceedings in the connected appeals, no separate error requiring rectification was established. Rectification was therefore not warranted. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:25:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92596 The omission to record a separate finding on the applicant's submissions in a common final order was held not to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The matter arose from appeals based on the same impugned order and common facts, where the main order had already remanded the dispute for cross-examination of a witness. As the applicant's penalty for abetment under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on the outcome of the remand proceedings in the connected appeals, no separate error requiring rectification was established. Rectification was therefore not warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92596