https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367254 Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a concluded order on the basis of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record; such an error must be patent, manifest and self-evident, and ROM cannot operate as a disguised review. The Tribunal held that the prior speaking order had already considered the statutory provisions, adjudication findings and arguments, and the new submissions and case law could not justify reopening the merits, so the rectification application was dismissed. On implementation, the Tribunal held that credit compliance after GST introduction had to be addressed under the transitional provisions, and no separate directions were warranted under Rule 41, so the miscellaneous application was disposed of without further direction. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:01:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367254 Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a concluded order on the basis of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record; such an error must be patent, manifest and self-evident, and ROM cannot operate as a disguised review. The Tribunal held that the prior speaking order had already considered the statutory provisions, adjudication findings and arguments, and the new submissions and case law could not justify reopening the merits, so the rectification application was dismissed. On implementation, the Tribunal held that credit compliance after GST introduction had to be addressed under the transitional provisions, and no separate directions were warranted under Rule 41, so the miscellaneous application was disposed of without further direction. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367254