https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193953 Rectification jurisdiction under the CESTAT Procedure Rules was treated as extremely narrow, so the Tribunal could not be asked to reopen an order on the same request for additional evidence after it had already examined that issue in the original proceedings. The court noted that the Revenue's application sought no genuine correction of an apparent error but a reconsideration of matters previously decided. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose from the refusal to entertain the rectification application, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:45:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193953 Rectification jurisdiction under the CESTAT Procedure Rules was treated as extremely narrow, so the Tribunal could not be asked to reopen an order on the same request for additional evidence after it had already examined that issue in the original proceedings. The court noted that the Revenue's application sought no genuine correction of an apparent error but a reconsideration of matters previously decided. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose from the refusal to entertain the rectification application, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193953