https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116791 An apparent error in the reference to Rule 2(1)B was corrected by deleting the mistaken citation while leaving the finding on eligibility to actual Cenvat credit intact. The request for consequential relief was held outside the scope of rectification and was rejected. The Revenue's cross-objection was also held not maintainable in rectification proceedings, as cross-objection lies in appeal proceedings rather than in a rectification application. The rectification was thus allowed only to the limited extent of correcting the statutory reference, with the ancillary relief declined and the cross-objection dismissed. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:39:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116791 An apparent error in the reference to Rule 2(1)B was corrected by deleting the mistaken citation while leaving the finding on eligibility to actual Cenvat credit intact. The request for consequential relief was held outside the scope of rectification and was rejected. The Revenue's cross-objection was also held not maintainable in rectification proceedings, as cross-objection lies in appeal proceedings rather than in a rectification application. The rectification was thus allowed only to the limited extent of correcting the statutory reference, with the ancillary relief declined and the cross-objection dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116791