https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102942 The Tribunal treated the earlier rectification as merging with the unrectified order, so the original order had to be read as rectified. It found that the matter had already been examined on all relevant aspects and that there was no misdeclaration, suppression of facts, or breach of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal also stated that the prior rectification did not amount to review or reappraisal of evidence. On that basis, it found no mistake in the rectified final order and held the Revenue's rectification application was not maintainable on the merits. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:03:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102942 The Tribunal treated the earlier rectification as merging with the unrectified order, so the original order had to be read as rectified. It found that the matter had already been examined on all relevant aspects and that there was no misdeclaration, suppression of facts, or breach of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal also stated that the prior rectification did not amount to review or reappraisal of evidence. On that basis, it found no mistake in the rectified final order and held the Revenue's rectification application was not maintainable on the merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102942