https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123762 The Tribunal declined an adjournment request due to the Special Counsel's unavailability, proceeding with the hearing as scheduled. The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the specification of points of difference in the order, emphasizing the need for clarity as per Section 129C(5). It deliberated on the interpretation of the points of difference raised by the applicants, addressing crucial aspects of burden of proof, documentation requirements, legal precedents, and accounting practices. The Tribunal found the rectification of mistake application premature as the order with a difference of opinion did not constitute a final decision under Section 129B(1), leading to the dismissal of the rectification application. en-us Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:30:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123762 The Tribunal declined an adjournment request due to the Special Counsel's unavailability, proceeding with the hearing as scheduled. The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the specification of points of difference in the order, emphasizing the need for clarity as per Section 129C(5). It deliberated on the interpretation of the points of difference raised by the applicants, addressing crucial aspects of burden of proof, documentation requirements, legal precedents, and accounting practices. The Tribunal found the rectification of mistake application premature as the order with a difference of opinion did not constitute a final decision under Section 129B(1), leading to the dismissal of the rectification application. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123762