<?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 276 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244821</link>
    <description>A rectification application cannot be used to reappreciate the record or alter a final finding on the merits. Where the alleged error would require reconsideration of submissions and evidence, correction would amount to a prohibited review rather than a permissible rectification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the requested change went to the root of the matter and was beyond the scope of rectification proceedings, so the application was not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 276 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244821</link>
      <description>A rectification application cannot be used to reappreciate the record or alter a final finding on the merits. Where the alleged error would require reconsideration of submissions and evidence, correction would amount to a prohibited review rather than a permissible rectification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the requested change went to the root of the matter and was beyond the scope of rectification proceedings, so the application was not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>