https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111973 Rectification was allowed only to the extent that the earlier finding on limitation rested on a misreading of the D-3 declaration. The Tribunal held that no apparent mistake existed on the observation about value addition, because the applicants themselves had referred to value addition in their hearing synopsis. However, the record showed that the rejected material was declared as received for reprocessing under Rule 173H, not merely for testing, so the earlier assumption was contradicted by the record. The rectified result was that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. en-us Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:47:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111973 Rectification was allowed only to the extent that the earlier finding on limitation rested on a misreading of the D-3 declaration. The Tribunal held that no apparent mistake existed on the observation about value addition, because the applicants themselves had referred to value addition in their hearing synopsis. However, the record showed that the rejected material was declared as received for reprocessing under Rule 173H, not merely for testing, so the earlier assumption was contradicted by the record. The rectified result was that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111973