https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153982 The Tribunal held that omission to mention a cited decision did not justify rectification because its substantive view that duty had become chargeable under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, remained unchanged. It declined to reopen the merits and maintained the earlier duty-liability finding. However, it accepted that an observation fastening liability on a legal heir went beyond the issue actually decided, so that sentence was replaced with a neutral statement limited to the duty demand against the original noticee. Rectification was therefore allowed only to that extent. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:32:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153982 The Tribunal held that omission to mention a cited decision did not justify rectification because its substantive view that duty had become chargeable under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, remained unchanged. It declined to reopen the merits and maintained the earlier duty-liability finding. However, it accepted that an observation fastening liability on a legal heir went beyond the issue actually decided, so that sentence was replaced with a neutral statement limited to the duty demand against the original noticee. Rectification was therefore allowed only to that extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153982