https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391943 Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to correcting an apparent mistake and cannot be used to reopen the merits, re-appreciate the record, or raise debatable questions of law or fact. An application claiming that limitation and invocation of the extended period were not separately recorded was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the rival submissions, upheld the demand, and found suppression of facts. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:35:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391943 Rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to correcting an apparent mistake and cannot be used to reopen the merits, re-appreciate the record, or raise debatable questions of law or fact. An application claiming that limitation and invocation of the extended period were not separately recorded was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the rival submissions, upheld the demand, and found suppression of facts. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391943