https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244069 A rectification request failed where a party sought reconsideration of whether duty paid through the CENVAT account discharged the liability, because that contention had not been raised during the original hearing. The Tribunal treated the alleged omission as outside rectification jurisdiction, since a new argument cannot be recast as an apparent mistake in the order. The underlying matter concerned penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, and the Tribunal had already waived penalty under Rule 25 while sustaining penalty under Rule 27. The rectification application was therefore rejected for absence of any error apparent from the record. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:47:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244069 A rectification request failed where a party sought reconsideration of whether duty paid through the CENVAT account discharged the liability, because that contention had not been raised during the original hearing. The Tribunal treated the alleged omission as outside rectification jurisdiction, since a new argument cannot be recast as an apparent mistake in the order. The underlying matter concerned penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, and the Tribunal had already waived penalty under Rule 25 while sustaining penalty under Rule 27. The rectification application was therefore rejected for absence of any error apparent from the record. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244069