https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349406 Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent, manifest and self-evident errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used as a disguised review. A miscellaneous application seeking recall or modification of a final order was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the arguments cumulatively and had remanded the matter for de novo adjudication in light of Supreme Court law. The contentions on limitation, extended period and taxability required re-appreciation of evidence and law, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings. No mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown, so the recall request was not maintainable and the remand order remained intact. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349406 Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent, manifest and self-evident errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used as a disguised review. A miscellaneous application seeking recall or modification of a final order was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the arguments cumulatively and had remanded the matter for de novo adjudication in light of Supreme Court law. The contentions on limitation, extended period and taxability required re-appreciation of evidence and law, which is impermissible in rectification proceedings. No mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown, so the recall request was not maintainable and the remand order remained intact. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349406