https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105370 Rectification was refused where the Revenue alleged an apparent error in a Tribunal order concerning classification and short-levy recovery linked to exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal held that reliance on an earlier Commissioner (Appeals) classification order did not disclose any error on the face of the record because that order had not been placed before it at the hearing. The argument that the earlier Matador Foams decision was distinguishable required detailed examination and lay beyond the limited scope of rectification. No apparent error was shown, so rectification was not warranted. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:43:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105370 Rectification was refused where the Revenue alleged an apparent error in a Tribunal order concerning classification and short-levy recovery linked to exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal held that reliance on an earlier Commissioner (Appeals) classification order did not disclose any error on the face of the record because that order had not been placed before it at the hearing. The argument that the earlier Matador Foams decision was distinguishable required detailed examination and lay beyond the limited scope of rectification. No apparent error was shown, so rectification was not warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105370