https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165447 Rectification under the CESTAT's error-correction jurisdiction was held unavailable where the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record. The assessee's plea that a 100% EOU was deemed registered could not support rectification because that basis had not been pleaded earlier, so rejection of the refund claim on non-registration was not shown to be erroneous. The Revenue's plea that Section 11B limitation applies to refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules also failed, because the original view followed binding precedent that Section 11B does not govern such refunds. Both rectification applications were rejected. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165447 Rectification under the CESTAT's error-correction jurisdiction was held unavailable where the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record. The assessee's plea that a 100% EOU was deemed registered could not support rectification because that basis had not been pleaded earlier, so rejection of the refund claim on non-registration was not shown to be erroneous. The Revenue's plea that Section 11B limitation applies to refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules also failed, because the original view followed binding precedent that Section 11B does not govern such refunds. Both rectification applications were rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165447