<?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 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95230</link>
    <description>Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to correcting obvious and patent mistakes apparent from the record; it cannot be used to reopen the matter, reappreciate evidence, or seek a fresh decision on the merits. An alleged error of judgment, a debatable issue, or a challenge based on documents not filed with the appeal falls outside the narrow rectification power. No mistake apparent from the record was shown, so the request for recall or reconsideration was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:36:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95230</link>
      <description>Rectification under Section 35C(2) is confined to correcting obvious and patent mistakes apparent from the record; it cannot be used to reopen the matter, reappreciate evidence, or seek a fresh decision on the merits. An alleged error of judgment, a debatable issue, or a challenge based on documents not filed with the appeal falls outside the narrow rectification power. No mistake apparent from the record was shown, so the request for recall or reconsideration was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>