https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101217 A rectification plea against denial of Modvat credit failed because no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The argument based on amended Rules 57G and 57T and Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) had not been raised in the appeal grounds or at hearing, and the order had been dictated in court in counsel's presence, so the omission could not be treated as a patent mistake. The record also showed the assessee itself admitted that the declaration was filed under Rule 57G, though it should have been under Rule 57T, supporting the view that the necessary declaration for capital goods was not filed when credit was taken. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:46:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101217 A rectification plea against denial of Modvat credit failed because no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The argument based on amended Rules 57G and 57T and Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) had not been raised in the appeal grounds or at hearing, and the order had been dictated in court in counsel's presence, so the omission could not be treated as a patent mistake. The record also showed the assessee itself admitted that the declaration was filed under Rule 57G, though it should have been under Rule 57T, supporting the view that the necessary declaration for capital goods was not filed when credit was taken. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101217