https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170217 Two separate undervaluation proceedings were based on different factual foundations: one on alleged related-person valuation under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002, and the other on misrepresentation of premium brands as inferior brands. The earlier final order was therefore ? No, it was held to contain an error apparent on the face of the record in treating those proceedings as the same issue. The order also wrongly recorded finality of one adjudication order despite the appeal period still running and an appeal being pending. On these record-based errors, the rectification application succeeded and the earlier final order was recalled. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2015 18:20:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170217 Two separate undervaluation proceedings were based on different factual foundations: one on alleged related-person valuation under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002, and the other on misrepresentation of premium brands as inferior brands. The earlier final order was therefore ? No, it was held to contain an error apparent on the face of the record in treating those proceedings as the same issue. The order also wrongly recorded finality of one adjudication order despite the appeal period still running and an appeal being pending. On these record-based errors, the rectification application succeeded and the earlier final order was recalled. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170217