https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153652 Rectification is limited to correcting a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision or obtain review. In this excise context, the depreciation objection failed because the record showed depreciation had been allowed, and the plea was treated as a reargument rather than a patent error. The jurisdictional objection also failed: proceedings under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held sustainable despite omission of Rule 57U, because Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 preserves such actions. The cited contrary decision was treated as distinguishable, and the rectification application was held not maintainable. en-us Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:08:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153652 Rectification is limited to correcting a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision or obtain review. In this excise context, the depreciation objection failed because the record showed depreciation had been allowed, and the plea was treated as a reargument rather than a patent error. The jurisdictional objection also failed: proceedings under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held sustainable despite omission of Rule 57U, because Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 preserves such actions. The cited contrary decision was treated as distinguishable, and the rectification application was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153652