<?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>2008 (7) TMI 832 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125621</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s application for rectification of mistakes, except for correcting a typographical error in the order. The Tribunal clarified that the power of review under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, only allows for rectifying errors apparent on the face of the record. The appellant&#039;s claims were rejected, and the order was amended solely to rectify the identified typographical error.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:47:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 832 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125621</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s application for rectification of mistakes, except for correcting a typographical error in the order. The Tribunal clarified that the power of review under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, only allows for rectifying errors apparent on the face of the record. The appellant&#039;s claims were rejected, and the order was amended solely to rectify the identified typographical error.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>