https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113351 Withdrawal of appeals by counsel was treated as authorised and intentional, not as an inadvertent lapse or mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that the applicants' own prior assertion that the appeals were withdrawn to pursue another forum confirmed the deliberate nature of the withdrawal, making the principle applicable to accidental omissions inapplicable. It further stated that its procedural recall power and Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act could not be used to reopen a validly passed order absent a patent error. The applications for rectification and recall were therefore rejected as not maintainable. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 18:38:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113351 Withdrawal of appeals by counsel was treated as authorised and intentional, not as an inadvertent lapse or mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that the applicants' own prior assertion that the appeals were withdrawn to pursue another forum confirmed the deliberate nature of the withdrawal, making the principle applicable to accidental omissions inapplicable. It further stated that its procedural recall power and Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act could not be used to reopen a validly passed order absent a patent error. The applications for rectification and recall were therefore rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113351