https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375237 Rectification under the CESTAT Rules extends to clerical or apparent mistakes, so a wrongly recorded respondent name was correctable where the corrected corporate name had already been used in the High Court direction and appeal papers. By contrast, a challenge that the earlier remand ignored settled law on composite works contracts did not disclose any error apparent on record, because the remand was made without adjudicating the merits and the tax treatment depended on the underlying contracts not then on record. The rectification application therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the respondent's name, while the challenge to the remand order was rejected. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375237 Rectification under the CESTAT Rules extends to clerical or apparent mistakes, so a wrongly recorded respondent name was correctable where the corrected corporate name had already been used in the High Court direction and appeal papers. By contrast, a challenge that the earlier remand ignored settled law on composite works contracts did not disclose any error apparent on record, because the remand was made without adjudicating the merits and the tax treatment depended on the underlying contracts not then on record. The rectification application therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the respondent's name, while the challenge to the remand order was rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375237