https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377319 Rectification of an order is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen the matter for a rehearing. In this CESTAT Chennai note, the applicant sought rectification on the ground that the final order allegedly omitted a prayer for interest under Section 27A from the date of import. The Tribunal held that no cogent reason was shown to disturb the factual or legal findings already recorded, and that the alleged omission did not disclose an apparent error. The rectification/review application was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:53:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377319 Rectification of an order is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen the matter for a rehearing. In this CESTAT Chennai note, the applicant sought rectification on the ground that the final order allegedly omitted a prayer for interest under Section 27A from the date of import. The Tribunal held that no cogent reason was shown to disturb the factual or legal findings already recorded, and that the alleged omission did not disclose an apparent error. The rectification/review application was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377319