<?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>2002 (3) TMI 465 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101987</link>
    <description>Rectification of mistake was refused because no apparent error was shown in the final order. The demand rested on shift-wise records based on flow meter readings, and the Commissioner&#039;s factual finding that the flow meters were not totalizers and did not record cumulative raw naphtha consumption remained unchallenged. Even assuming File No. 6 had been referred to in the show cause notice and put to the respondent, that material would not disturb the ative factual basis of the earlier decision. The Tribunal therefore held that the alleged non-consideration of File No. 6 did not justify rectification and rejected the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:18:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 465 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101987</link>
      <description>Rectification of mistake was refused because no apparent error was shown in the final order. The demand rested on shift-wise records based on flow meter readings, and the Commissioner&#039;s factual finding that the flow meters were not totalizers and did not record cumulative raw naphtha consumption remained unchallenged. Even assuming File No. 6 had been referred to in the show cause notice and put to the respondent, that material would not disturb the ative factual basis of the earlier decision. The Tribunal therefore held that the alleged non-consideration of File No. 6 did not justify rectification and rejected the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>