https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116898 Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to re-open or re-appreciate evidence. The Tribunal held that the appellant-name correction was not maintainable because the alleged error originated in the Commissioner's record and was merely carried into the appeal papers, so the Tribunal's order reflected the name as filed. The challenge to disallowance of modvat/cenvat credit also failed because the application sought reconsideration of concurrent factual findings that invoices were bogus and no goods were transported or received, which lies beyond rectification. The application was rejected as disclosing no apparent error. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:17:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116898 Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to re-open or re-appreciate evidence. The Tribunal held that the appellant-name correction was not maintainable because the alleged error originated in the Commissioner's record and was merely carried into the appeal papers, so the Tribunal's order reflected the name as filed. The challenge to disallowance of modvat/cenvat credit also failed because the application sought reconsideration of concurrent factual findings that invoices were bogus and no goods were transported or received, which lies beyond rectification. The application was rejected as disclosing no apparent error. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116898