https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366122 The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake under Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It found that there was no apparent error in the original order and emphasized the importance of evidence regarding the dispatch of the impugned order. Despite the applicant's arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the delay of almost six years was evident and that the Department had provided crucial evidence of dispatch through registered post, leading to the dismissal of the rectification application. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366122 The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake under Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It found that there was no apparent error in the original order and emphasized the importance of evidence regarding the dispatch of the impugned order. Despite the applicant's arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the delay of almost six years was evident and that the Department had provided crucial evidence of dispatch through registered post, leading to the dismissal of the rectification application. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366122