https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219330 Non-consideration of a specifically raised plea based on a Larger Bench ruling on the scope of capital goods under Rule 57Q was treated as a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee had argued that the disputed items qualified as capital goods even before 16-3-1995, but the earlier final order dealt only with the prospective effect of the amendment inserting clauses (d) and (e) and did not address the binding precedent. That omission justified rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, recall of the earlier order, and restoration of the appeal to its original number. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219330 Non-consideration of a specifically raised plea based on a Larger Bench ruling on the scope of capital goods under Rule 57Q was treated as a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee had argued that the disputed items qualified as capital goods even before 16-3-1995, but the earlier final order dealt only with the prospective effect of the amendment inserting clauses (d) and (e) and did not address the binding precedent. That omission justified rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, recall of the earlier order, and restoration of the appeal to its original number. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219330