https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171943 Review was allowed because the earlier order had proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding excise duty payment. The Court accepted that the assessee was entitled to pay duty on a monthly basis for the relevant period, and that payment had in fact been made, though belatedly, pursuant to the departmental demand. As these material facts were not placed before the Court earlier, the omission created an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier order was reviewed, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order in favour of the assessee was restored. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171943 Review was allowed because the earlier order had proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding excise duty payment. The Court accepted that the assessee was entitled to pay duty on a monthly basis for the relevant period, and that payment had in fact been made, though belatedly, pursuant to the departmental demand. As these material facts were not placed before the Court earlier, the omission created an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier order was reviewed, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order in favour of the assessee was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171943