https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390210 A challenge to a final appellate order was held maintainable even though the assessee had not separately appealed an earlier recall order, because the legality of an antecedent procedural order could be questioned in an appeal against the final order passed pursuant to it. Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act was confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record, and a later Supreme Court decision could not be treated as such a mistake merely because it changed or clarified the law. The rectification power could not be used to reopen a concluded appeal or substitute a fresh merits decision. The Tribunal's reopening was unsustainable and the original appellate order was restored. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2020 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390210 A challenge to a final appellate order was held maintainable even though the assessee had not separately appealed an earlier recall order, because the legality of an antecedent procedural order could be questioned in an appeal against the final order passed pursuant to it. Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act was confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record, and a later Supreme Court decision could not be treated as such a mistake merely because it changed or clarified the law. The rectification power could not be used to reopen a concluded appeal or substitute a fresh merits decision. The Tribunal's reopening was unsustainable and the original appellate order was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390210