https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167155 Rectification under section 35C(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot operate as a disguised review to reopen a valid order. Alleged omissions concerning comparative clearances, retrospective effect of the Tariff Advice, and concurrent factual findings were not shown to be such apparent errors, particularly because the earlier decision was not based on those contentions. The new plea based on omission of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also rejected because it had not been raised at the appeal hearing and, in any event, did not amount to an apparent mistake. The rectification application was therefore rejected as not maintainable. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:11:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167155 Rectification under section 35C(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot operate as a disguised review to reopen a valid order. Alleged omissions concerning comparative clearances, retrospective effect of the Tariff Advice, and concurrent factual findings were not shown to be such apparent errors, particularly because the earlier decision was not based on those contentions. The new plea based on omission of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also rejected because it had not been raised at the appeal hearing and, in any event, did not amount to an apparent mistake. The rectification application was therefore rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167155