<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (7) TMI 2102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286959</link>
    <description>Non-supply of an assessee&#039;s own letter did not vitiate the adjudication where the record showed it had already been furnished and no adverse third-party reliance was established, so no breach of natural justice arose. Section 35C(2) permits only rectification of a mistake apparent from the record and does not confer review or general modification powers; Rule 41 cannot expand that limited jurisdiction. The Tribunal therefore could not entertain a modification application to remand the matter without deciding the appeal on merits, and the remand order was held unsustainable. The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for decision on the main appeals in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 2102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286959</link>
      <description>Non-supply of an assessee&#039;s own letter did not vitiate the adjudication where the record showed it had already been furnished and no adverse third-party reliance was established, so no breach of natural justice arose. Section 35C(2) permits only rectification of a mistake apparent from the record and does not confer review or general modification powers; Rule 41 cannot expand that limited jurisdiction. The Tribunal therefore could not entertain a modification application to remand the matter without deciding the appeal on merits, and the remand order was held unsustainable. The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for decision on the main appeals in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>