<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (3) TMI 47 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244590</link>
    <description>Rectification of an order dismissing a restoration application was refused because the Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to correcting a mistake apparent on the record, not reviewing the earlier decision. The order had been dictated in court in the presence of counsel, and no apparent error on the face of the record was identified. As no rectifiable mistake was shown, the application for rectification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:17:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 47 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244590</link>
      <description>Rectification of an order dismissing a restoration application was refused because the Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to correcting a mistake apparent on the record, not reviewing the earlier decision. The order had been dictated in court in the presence of counsel, and no apparent error on the face of the record was identified. As no rectifiable mistake was shown, the application for rectification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>