https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271506 The Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, emphasizing the clarity of the question referred to the Third Member and the appropriateness of the referral in light of the differing opinions expressed by the original Members. The application sought rectification due to a disagreement between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) on the sufficiency of evidence regarding fraudulent credit availment. The Tribunal held that the original framing of the question was clear and that the differing opinions justified the referral to the Third Member, ultimately denying the application for rectification. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:03:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271506 The Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, emphasizing the clarity of the question referred to the Third Member and the appropriateness of the referral in light of the differing opinions expressed by the original Members. The application sought rectification due to a disagreement between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) on the sufficiency of evidence regarding fraudulent credit availment. The Tribunal held that the original framing of the question was clear and that the differing opinions justified the referral to the Third Member, ultimately denying the application for rectification. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271506