<?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 (7) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93929</link>
    <description>Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and from the order itself; a mere wrong conclusion or allegedly erroneous judgment does not qualify as such a patent error. The claimed exemption under the notifications was treated as relating to concession of duty, but that alone did not establish an obvious mistake amenable to rectification. No mistake apparent from the record was shown, so the rectification application was liable to be rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:16:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93929</link>
      <description>Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and from the order itself; a mere wrong conclusion or allegedly erroneous judgment does not qualify as such a patent error. The claimed exemption under the notifications was treated as relating to concession of duty, but that alone did not establish an obvious mistake amenable to rectification. No mistake apparent from the record was shown, so the rectification application was liable to be rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>