https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402631 A patent typing error in an earlier final order was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, so the reference to Rs. 60 lakhs was rectified to Rs. 60 thousand without any fresh merits adjudication. The omission to deal with a material challenge to appropriation of a deposit made during investigation was also treated as rectifiable under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, because a ground specifically raised in appeal had not been considered. On the facts stated, the appropriation of the deposit towards the dues of another entity was set aside. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402631 A patent typing error in an earlier final order was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, so the reference to Rs. 60 lakhs was rectified to Rs. 60 thousand without any fresh merits adjudication. The omission to deal with a material challenge to appropriation of a deposit made during investigation was also treated as rectifiable under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, because a ground specifically raised in appeal had not been considered. On the facts stated, the appropriation of the deposit towards the dues of another entity was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 22 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402631