<?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 (11) TMI 448 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95128</link>
    <description>Rectification is confined to a mistake apparent from the record, meaning a glaring error of fact or law visible on the face of the record; a point needing detailed arguments falls outside that scope. Applying that standard, the claimed error could not be corrected through rectification because it was not self-evident from the record. The application was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:24:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 448 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95128</link>
      <description>Rectification is confined to a mistake apparent from the record, meaning a glaring error of fact or law visible on the face of the record; a point needing detailed arguments falls outside that scope. Applying that standard, the claimed error could not be corrected through rectification because it was not self-evident from the record. The application was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>