https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104802 Rectification was rejected because the alleged mistake concerned a contested issue already raised in the appeal and decided in the final order. The Tribunal found that the earlier direction to re-quantify duty by applying Notification No. 177/86-C.E. to credit on PVC granules used in Rexine cloth manufacture did not introduce a new issue; the show cause notice and the assessee's reply had already addressed the notification-based credit restriction. Since rectification jurisdiction extends only to patent errors apparent on the face of the record, it could not be used to reopen or delete a reasoned finding on a matter actually in dispute. The earlier credit-limit direction therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:05:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104802 Rectification was rejected because the alleged mistake concerned a contested issue already raised in the appeal and decided in the final order. The Tribunal found that the earlier direction to re-quantify duty by applying Notification No. 177/86-C.E. to credit on PVC granules used in Rexine cloth manufacture did not introduce a new issue; the show cause notice and the assessee's reply had already addressed the notification-based credit restriction. Since rectification jurisdiction extends only to patent errors apparent on the face of the record, it could not be used to reopen or delete a reasoned finding on a matter actually in dispute. The earlier credit-limit direction therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104802