https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107805 Rectification under the mistake-apparent standard is confined to obvious, self-evident errors and cannot be used for reappreciation of the merits. In this CESTAT note, the Department's challenge to the finding that no duty was payable on 81 coils removed from a bonded warehouse was held to require reconsideration of the evidence, not correction of a patent mistake. The separate challenge to reduction of the manager's penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 was also treated as a request for substantive review rather than rectification. The applications therefore failed on both counts. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:08:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107805 Rectification under the mistake-apparent standard is confined to obvious, self-evident errors and cannot be used for reappreciation of the merits. In this CESTAT note, the Department's challenge to the finding that no duty was payable on 81 coils removed from a bonded warehouse was held to require reconsideration of the evidence, not correction of a patent mistake. The separate challenge to reduction of the manager's penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 was also treated as a request for substantive review rather than rectification. The applications therefore failed on both counts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107805