https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107065 A successive rectification application was held not maintainable where earlier rectification requests on the same subject had already been decided, following the principle that a further application cannot reopen an order rejecting rectification. The Tribunal also recognised that duty amounts deposited during the pendency of an appeal may be adjusted against the demand confirmed in the final order. Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Rule 41, it directed the lower authorities to consider the deposits and the appellant's submissions while computing the final duty demand, with relief granted only to that extent. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:27:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107065 A successive rectification application was held not maintainable where earlier rectification requests on the same subject had already been decided, following the principle that a further application cannot reopen an order rejecting rectification. The Tribunal also recognised that duty amounts deposited during the pendency of an appeal may be adjusted against the demand confirmed in the final order. Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Rule 41, it directed the lower authorities to consider the deposits and the appellant's submissions while computing the final duty demand, with relief granted only to that extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107065