https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111598 A further recall of an order passed on a rectification of mistake application was held impermissible, because there is no provision for rectifying a rectification order; the request to reopen that order was rejected. Penalties on the companies were sustained on the basis of accepted clubbing of clearances, mutuality of interest, common management, and admitted undervaluation, with one company's penalty reduced. The individual penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside because the record did not establish complicity in the alleged evasion or wrongful removal of goods. en-us Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:35:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111598 A further recall of an order passed on a rectification of mistake application was held impermissible, because there is no provision for rectifying a rectification order; the request to reopen that order was rejected. Penalties on the companies were sustained on the basis of accepted clubbing of clearances, mutuality of interest, common management, and admitted undervaluation, with one company's penalty reduced. The individual penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside because the record did not establish complicity in the alleged evasion or wrongful removal of goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111598