https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35039 Rectification under the Tribunal's limited error-correction jurisdiction extends only to mistakes apparent from the record. A factual misstatement that the assessees had not disputed the manner of file retrieval from seized floppies was corrected because the record showed such a dispute had been raised. A separate challenge to the Tribunal's findings on the reliability of computer files, the scope of Section 36B(2), and objections based on unauthenticated software and the Evidence Act was rejected because it sought reappreciation of evidence rather than correction of an apparent error. A further factual misdescription regarding sealing of the floppies was also corrected. The substantive findings otherwise remained unchanged. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35039 Rectification under the Tribunal's limited error-correction jurisdiction extends only to mistakes apparent from the record. A factual misstatement that the assessees had not disputed the manner of file retrieval from seized floppies was corrected because the record showed such a dispute had been raised. A separate challenge to the Tribunal's findings on the reliability of computer files, the scope of Section 36B(2), and objections based on unauthenticated software and the Evidence Act was rejected because it sought reappreciation of evidence rather than correction of an apparent error. A further factual misdescription regarding sealing of the floppies was also corrected. The substantive findings otherwise remained unchanged. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35039