https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94114 An omission in a final order to grant Modvat credit on duty-paid inputs was treated as an error apparent on the face of the record and was rectifiable under section 35C(2) because the claim had been raised at hearing and was supported by the record. The Tribunal reiterated that credit may be allowed on eligible duty-paid inputs used in manufacture, even where the procedural declaration requirement was not followed, subject to proof of duty payment and eligibility before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. A separate claim for relief based on higher duty paid was rejected because the supporting letter was not on record, so no record-based mistake was shown. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:46:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94114 An omission in a final order to grant Modvat credit on duty-paid inputs was treated as an error apparent on the face of the record and was rectifiable under section 35C(2) because the claim had been raised at hearing and was supported by the record. The Tribunal reiterated that credit may be allowed on eligible duty-paid inputs used in manufacture, even where the procedural declaration requirement was not followed, subject to proof of duty payment and eligibility before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. A separate claim for relief based on higher duty paid was rejected because the supporting letter was not on record, so no record-based mistake was shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94114