https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350591 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, rejecting the ROM application filed by M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order and emphasized that rectification of mistake is only for patent mistakes, not debatable legal points. The decision was based on legal precedents and principles outlined by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal's larger bench decision, affirming the necessity of Rule 25 penalties in cases involving fake invoices or non-issuance of invoices to evade duty. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Nov 2017 08:08:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350591 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, rejecting the ROM application filed by M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order and emphasized that rectification of mistake is only for patent mistakes, not debatable legal points. The decision was based on legal precedents and principles outlined by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal's larger bench decision, affirming the necessity of Rule 25 penalties in cases involving fake invoices or non-issuance of invoices to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350591