<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (3) TMI 608 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115428</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record; non-consideration of an interim order does not, by itself, amount to such an error. Where the earlier settled classification had already been set aside by the appellate authority, no rectifiable mistake was shown. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s rectification application was held not maintainable and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 16:04:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 608 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115428</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record; non-consideration of an interim order does not, by itself, amount to such an error. Where the earlier settled classification had already been set aside by the appellate authority, no rectifiable mistake was shown. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s rectification application was held not maintainable and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>