https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390806 The Tribunal rejected a rectification of mistake application because no apparent error on the record was shown. It reiterated that allegations of tampering had been raised during the hearing, the appellant was asked to respond, and the disputed documents were examined by comparing handwriting and signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. On that basis, the documents were treated as tampered and fraud on the Tribunal was found. The Tribunal further held that the application repeated false allegations rather than identifying any genuine mistake, and it treated the filing as an abuse of process. Exemplary costs were imposed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:45:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390806 The Tribunal rejected a rectification of mistake application because no apparent error on the record was shown. It reiterated that allegations of tampering had been raised during the hearing, the appellant was asked to respond, and the disputed documents were examined by comparing handwriting and signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. On that basis, the documents were treated as tampered and fraud on the Tribunal was found. The Tribunal further held that the application repeated false allegations rather than identifying any genuine mistake, and it treated the filing as an abuse of process. Exemplary costs were imposed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390806