https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393441 The court rejected the review application seeking interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount refunded, emphasizing that the statutory provisions of the Central Excise Act were not applicable to the mistaken payment. Despite acknowledging inconsistencies in its findings, the court held that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to correct every error, whether factual or legal. As the interest issue was not raised during the original hearing and lacked foundational support, the court concluded that rehearing the matter would exceed the scope of a review petition, ultimately denying the interest claim and discharging the rule with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Dec 2020 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393441 The court rejected the review application seeking interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount refunded, emphasizing that the statutory provisions of the Central Excise Act were not applicable to the mistaken payment. Despite acknowledging inconsistencies in its findings, the court held that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to correct every error, whether factual or legal. As the interest issue was not raised during the original hearing and lacked foundational support, the court concluded that rehearing the matter would exceed the scope of a review petition, ultimately denying the interest claim and discharging the rule with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393441