https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198293 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, self-evident mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used for review, rehearing, or re-argument of the appeal. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's miscellaneous application substantially sought reconsideration of evidence and the issue of extrapolated suppressed sales, which had already been dealt with in the original order. It further found no omission or apparent error in relation to the alleged admission, excise proceedings, or earlier decisions relied upon by the Revenue. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the rectification application was held not maintainable. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 07:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198293 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, self-evident mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used for review, rehearing, or re-argument of the appeal. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's miscellaneous application substantially sought reconsideration of evidence and the issue of extrapolated suppressed sales, which had already been dealt with in the original order. It further found no omission or apparent error in relation to the alleged admission, excise proceedings, or earlier decisions relied upon by the Revenue. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the rectification application was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198293