https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180749 Rectification under Section 35C(2) was sought on the ground that the earlier final order had not considered Rule 34(a) and departmental clarifications, but that objection was rejected because those matters had already been dealt with in the original order. A rectification proceeding cannot be used to reopen findings already recorded. The Tribunal nevertheless recognised that the later Supreme Court affirmation of the valuation principle for tiles supplied in retail packs to industrial buyers, where the goods were not marked for industrial use or non-retail sale, created binding law on MRP declaration and Section 4A valuation. Non-consideration of that later binding precedent was treated as an error apparent from the record, and the earlier final order was recalled. en-us Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:08:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180749 Rectification under Section 35C(2) was sought on the ground that the earlier final order had not considered Rule 34(a) and departmental clarifications, but that objection was rejected because those matters had already been dealt with in the original order. A rectification proceeding cannot be used to reopen findings already recorded. The Tribunal nevertheless recognised that the later Supreme Court affirmation of the valuation principle for tiles supplied in retail packs to industrial buyers, where the goods were not marked for industrial use or non-retail sale, created binding law on MRP declaration and Section 4A valuation. Non-consideration of that later binding precedent was treated as an error apparent from the record, and the earlier final order was recalled. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180749