https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108816 Rectification proceedings are confined to patent errors of fact or law apparent on the record; they cannot be used to reargue the merits, revisit evidence, or seek a fresh interpretation of excise provisions. The Tribunal had already considered the meaning of factory under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, the capacity determination rules, compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the request for remand. Repetition of those objections or a different view on interpretation did not amount to an apparent mistake. No ground for rectification or recall was made out, and the application was held not maintainable. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108816 Rectification proceedings are confined to patent errors of fact or law apparent on the record; they cannot be used to reargue the merits, revisit evidence, or seek a fresh interpretation of excise provisions. The Tribunal had already considered the meaning of factory under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, the capacity determination rules, compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the request for remand. Repetition of those objections or a different view on interpretation did not amount to an apparent mistake. No ground for rectification or recall was made out, and the application was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108816