https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765875 The Court determined that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting a new order for the original one, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. It emphasized that rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act is limited to apparent mistakes. The Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Adjudicating Authority's actions were beyond its jurisdiction. The legal judgment focused on the jurisdictional limits of the Adjudicating Authority, the scope of rectification, and the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, leading to the appeal's dismissal. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:30:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765875 The Court determined that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting a new order for the original one, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. It emphasized that rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act is limited to apparent mistakes. The Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Adjudicating Authority's actions were beyond its jurisdiction. The legal judgment focused on the jurisdictional limits of the Adjudicating Authority, the scope of rectification, and the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, leading to the appeal's dismissal. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765875