https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378040 Rectification under the error-apparent standard was refused because the applicant's plea effectively sought review of the final order rather than correction of a manifest mistake. The record noted that the demand had already been paid without protest, which was treated as an admission, and that limitation could not override that admitted liability even though penalty had been set aside for absence of fraud or suppression. On that basis, the confirmation of demand was not regarded as an apparent error, and the rectification application was dismissed. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378040 Rectification under the error-apparent standard was refused because the applicant's plea effectively sought review of the final order rather than correction of a manifest mistake. The record noted that the demand had already been paid without protest, which was treated as an admission, and that limitation could not override that admitted liability even though penalty had been set aside for absence of fraud or suppression. On that basis, the confirmation of demand was not regarded as an apparent error, and the rectification application was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378040