https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127976 The Tribunal used its inherent powers to correct an apparent factual inconsistency in an earlier interim stay order by deleting a sentence in paragraph 7 that stated counsel undertook not to redeem confiscated goods. That sentence conflicted with the rest of the order, which recorded that the goods were not available for confiscation and affected the request relating to redemption fine. The Tribunal treated the matter as a suo motu correction of its own order and removed the inconsistent wording without proceeding as a conventional rectification application. The application was disposed of after the deletion. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:25:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127976 The Tribunal used its inherent powers to correct an apparent factual inconsistency in an earlier interim stay order by deleting a sentence in paragraph 7 that stated counsel undertook not to redeem confiscated goods. That sentence conflicted with the rest of the order, which recorded that the goods were not available for confiscation and affected the request relating to redemption fine. The Tribunal treated the matter as a suo motu correction of its own order and removed the inconsistent wording without proceeding as a conventional rectification application. The application was disposed of after the deletion. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127976