https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345481 Rectification was refused where the appellants could not show any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order dismissing restoration for delay; the later plea that Committee of Disputes clearance had not been received was not part of the record before that Bench, so no patent error was shown. By contrast, restoration was allowed where an earlier restoration application had already been filed and remained pending, but had not been noticed when the later application was rejected on delay. On that record, the prior adverse order could not stand, and the appeal was restored for hearing. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:19:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345481 Rectification was refused where the appellants could not show any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order dismissing restoration for delay; the later plea that Committee of Disputes clearance had not been received was not part of the record before that Bench, so no patent error was shown. By contrast, restoration was allowed where an earlier restoration application had already been filed and remained pending, but had not been noticed when the later application was rejected on delay. On that record, the prior adverse order could not stand, and the appeal was restored for hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345481