<?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 (10) TMI 1412 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369446</link>
    <description>A rectification application under the ROM procedure can succeed only if the earlier order discloses an apparent mistake on the record, not where the applicant seeks to reargue the merits. The Tribunal found that the alleged omission, including objections on denial of cross-examination and the demand based on consignment notes, had already been considered in the earlier order, which had also given a reasoned finding sustaining the demand. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the ROM application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:39:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1412 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369446</link>
      <description>A rectification application under the ROM procedure can succeed only if the earlier order discloses an apparent mistake on the record, not where the applicant seeks to reargue the merits. The Tribunal found that the alleged omission, including objections on denial of cross-examination and the demand based on consignment notes, had already been considered in the earlier order, which had also given a reasoned finding sustaining the demand. As no mistake apparent from the record was shown, the ROM application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>