https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246488 A misdescription of the respondent in the Department's appeal cause title was treated as a clerical error and corrected on the basis of the earlier record. The Tribunal also recalled its final order in the assessee's appeal because both appeals arose from the same order-in-original and should have been heard together. Finding that the earlier disposal rested on the mistaken assumption that no Revenue appeal was pending, it exercised Rule 41 power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The pending rectification application was dismissed as infructuous, and both appeals were directed for fresh joint hearing. en-us Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:24:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246488 A misdescription of the respondent in the Department's appeal cause title was treated as a clerical error and corrected on the basis of the earlier record. The Tribunal also recalled its final order in the assessee's appeal because both appeals arose from the same order-in-original and should have been heard together. Finding that the earlier disposal rested on the mistaken assumption that no Revenue appeal was pending, it exercised Rule 41 power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The pending rectification application was dismissed as infructuous, and both appeals were directed for fresh joint hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246488