https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369306 Typographical errors in the final order, including mention of the appellant's name and an incorrect operative disposal, were rectified. Because both sides sought correction and the matter required consideration afresh, the earlier disposal was not maintained and the appeal was restored to its original number for final hearing afresh. No substantive determination of the tax dispute was made, and the matter was reopened for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:42:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369306 Typographical errors in the final order, including mention of the appellant's name and an incorrect operative disposal, were rectified. Because both sides sought correction and the matter required consideration afresh, the earlier disposal was not maintained and the appeal was restored to its original number for final hearing afresh. No substantive determination of the tax dispute was made, and the matter was reopened for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369306