<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (9) TMI 1651 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367915</link>
    <description>Rectification under ROM jurisdiction is limited to patent mistakes apparent on a mere look at the record and cannot be used for a rehearing on factual or legal merits. Where the grounds require detailed examination or reconsideration of the dispute, they fall outside rectification and amount to an appeal in disguise. On that basis, the alleged mistakes were not errors apparent on the face of the record, and the ROM applications were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:11:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1651 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367915</link>
      <description>Rectification under ROM jurisdiction is limited to patent mistakes apparent on a mere look at the record and cannot be used for a rehearing on factual or legal merits. Where the grounds require detailed examination or reconsideration of the dispute, they fall outside rectification and amount to an appeal in disguise. On that basis, the alleged mistakes were not errors apparent on the face of the record, and the ROM applications were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>