https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95157 Rectification was declined because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the Tribunal's earlier order. The applicant argued that the appeal had been filed in time and that the grounds of appeal and statement of facts could be filed later, with the necessary facts already reflected in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that no grounds of appeal or statement of facts had in fact been filed by the date of disposal, and it relied on binding authority requiring a proper appeal. The interlocutory order cited by the applicant was treated as non-precedential, so rectification was not warranted. en-us Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:59:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95157 Rectification was declined because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the Tribunal's earlier order. The applicant argued that the appeal had been filed in time and that the grounds of appeal and statement of facts could be filed later, with the necessary facts already reflected in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that no grounds of appeal or statement of facts had in fact been filed by the date of disposal, and it relied on binding authority requiring a proper appeal. The interlocutory order cited by the applicant was treated as non-precedential, so rectification was not warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95157