https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94615 Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to review the Tribunal's findings on excisability, which must be challenged in appeal. The application was therefore not maintainable to the extent it sought reconsideration of the merits, including the treatment of the Section 11C representation. However, apparent mistakes were made where the applicants were not given adequate opportunity to address reliance on Maurice Morton's Rubber Technology, the Tribunal did not deal with the objection that sample test reports were not supplied despite request, and it misapplied the earlier rejection of evidence concerning Dr. R.K. Matthan's certificate and Mr. W.E. Tessmer's letter. Relief was limited to those rectifiable errors. en-us Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:28:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94615 Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to review the Tribunal's findings on excisability, which must be challenged in appeal. The application was therefore not maintainable to the extent it sought reconsideration of the merits, including the treatment of the Section 11C representation. However, apparent mistakes were made where the applicants were not given adequate opportunity to address reliance on Maurice Morton's Rubber Technology, the Tribunal did not deal with the objection that sample test reports were not supplied despite request, and it misapplied the earlier rejection of evidence concerning Dr. R.K. Matthan's certificate and Mr. W.E. Tessmer's letter. Relief was limited to those rectifiable errors. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94615