<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (8) TMI 347 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93830</link>
    <description>A later judgment overruling the precedent applied in an earlier tribunal order does not, by itself, render that earlier order erroneous for rectification purposes. The tribunal held that the original observation was correct on the law as it stood when made, and a subsequent change in the legal position could not retrospectively create an apparent mistake in the earlier order. On that basis, the rectification application was held not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:04:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 347 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93830</link>
      <description>A later judgment overruling the precedent applied in an earlier tribunal order does not, by itself, render that earlier order erroneous for rectification purposes. The tribunal held that the original observation was correct on the law as it stood when made, and a subsequent change in the legal position could not retrospectively create an apparent mistake in the earlier order. On that basis, the rectification application was held not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>