https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115230 A rectification application was filed on the ground that the earlier order had overlooked the distinction between documentary requirements for capital goods and those applicable to inputs, and had not properly considered the notification extending the period for availment of credit. On review of the record and the relevant provisions, the Tribunal found that these aspects had been ignored, creating an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier order was therefore recalled, and the rectification application was allowed. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 18:31:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115230 A rectification application was filed on the ground that the earlier order had overlooked the distinction between documentary requirements for capital goods and those applicable to inputs, and had not properly considered the notification extending the period for availment of credit. On review of the record and the relevant provisions, the Tribunal found that these aspects had been ignored, creating an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier order was therefore recalled, and the rectification application was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115230