https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240724 A revenue miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an earlier order was held not entertainable because the mandatory authorisation requirement had not been met. The record showed only signatures of the concerned Commissioners on the noting sheet, without any actual collective consideration or decision by the Committee of Commissioners. That casual endorsement was insufficient to satisfy the legal requirement of authorisation, and no new circumstance was shown to justify a different view. The application was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240724 A revenue miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an earlier order was held not entertainable because the mandatory authorisation requirement had not been met. The record showed only signatures of the concerned Commissioners on the noting sheet, without any actual collective consideration or decision by the Committee of Commissioners. That casual endorsement was insufficient to satisfy the legal requirement of authorisation, and no new circumstance was shown to justify a different view. The application was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240724