https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104500 A rectification application cannot be used as a disguised review of a final appellate order, and grounds already argued in appeal do not justify reopening the matter. The Tribunal therefore refused to entertain the application styled as review under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also rejected the jurisdictional objection, following the Larger Bench view that the Assistant Commissioner had unlimited monetary powers to issue the demand notice for the normal limitation period. The objection based on Section 11AB failed because the penalties had been imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reduced penalties were left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:03:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104500 A rectification application cannot be used as a disguised review of a final appellate order, and grounds already argued in appeal do not justify reopening the matter. The Tribunal therefore refused to entertain the application styled as review under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also rejected the jurisdictional objection, following the Larger Bench view that the Assistant Commissioner had unlimited monetary powers to issue the demand notice for the normal limitation period. The objection based on Section 11AB failed because the penalties had been imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reduced penalties were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104500