https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109250 Rectification under the CEGAT procedure was unavailable because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in the final order. The application alleged that Modvat credit under Rule 57A should have been granted for excess CVD, but the record showed that the proceedings consistently concerned a claim for cash refund, not a distinct alternative claim for Modvat credit. The earlier order had already examined and rejected the refund claim by applying the binding precedent relied on in the appeal. As the alleged error would require detailed reasoning and amounted only to a debatable issue, the Tribunal refused both rectification and exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Rule 41. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:40:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109250 Rectification under the CEGAT procedure was unavailable because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in the final order. The application alleged that Modvat credit under Rule 57A should have been granted for excess CVD, but the record showed that the proceedings consistently concerned a claim for cash refund, not a distinct alternative claim for Modvat credit. The earlier order had already examined and rejected the refund claim by applying the binding precedent relied on in the appeal. As the alleged error would require detailed reasoning and amounted only to a debatable issue, the Tribunal refused both rectification and exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Rule 41. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109250