https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92617 Non-consideration of a cited High Court decision while deciding an appeal was treated as a mistake apparent on the face of the record, because the omitted precedent directly supported the assessee's contrary limitation argument. The challenged order had followed Tribunal precedent to hold that the limitation under Rule 11A did not apply to notices issued under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but it had not dealt with the later Allahabad High Court ruling cited before the Bench. On that basis, the recall request was held maintainable and the final order was recalled to the extent it concerned the time-bar issue for issuance of the show cause notice. en-us Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:23:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92617 Non-consideration of a cited High Court decision while deciding an appeal was treated as a mistake apparent on the face of the record, because the omitted precedent directly supported the assessee's contrary limitation argument. The challenged order had followed Tribunal precedent to hold that the limitation under Rule 11A did not apply to notices issued under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but it had not dealt with the later Allahabad High Court ruling cited before the Bench. On that basis, the recall request was held maintainable and the final order was recalled to the extent it concerned the time-bar issue for issuance of the show cause notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92617