https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109152 A Tribunal order dismissing appeals was challenged for recall or rectification on the ground that the adjournment request had referred to a pending Larger Bench issue and the matter had been decided by following an earlier Tribunal ruling. The Tribunal held that it has no power to review its own order, and no authority was shown to treat the pendency before a Larger Bench, by itself, as a mistake apparent from the record under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the impugned orders had been passed in accordance with an existing Tribunal decision, no apparent error was established. The request for recall and rectification was rejected. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:04:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109152 A Tribunal order dismissing appeals was challenged for recall or rectification on the ground that the adjournment request had referred to a pending Larger Bench issue and the matter had been decided by following an earlier Tribunal ruling. The Tribunal held that it has no power to review its own order, and no authority was shown to treat the pendency before a Larger Bench, by itself, as a mistake apparent from the record under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the impugned orders had been passed in accordance with an existing Tribunal decision, no apparent error was established. The request for recall and rectification was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109152