https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155296 A retrospective amendment to Rule 57CC(2) inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 was held to have direct bearing on the recovery issue previously decided. Because the amendment was already on the statute book when the final order was passed but had been overlooked, the omission constituted a patent mistake apparent from the record. The rectification application was therefore maintainable, the earlier order was recalled, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee. The text distinguishes such recall from an attempt to introduce a wholly new case. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:10:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155296 A retrospective amendment to Rule 57CC(2) inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 was held to have direct bearing on the recovery issue previously decided. Because the amendment was already on the statute book when the final order was passed but had been overlooked, the omission constituted a patent mistake apparent from the record. The rectification application was therefore maintainable, the earlier order was recalled, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee. The text distinguishes such recall from an attempt to introduce a wholly new case. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155296