https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44974 Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, read with Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, was treated as empowering the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record by recalling an earlier order and directing rehearing where the order had been passed under a demonstrable misapprehension. The Court distinguished such corrective procedural action from an impermissible review on merits: the Tribunal could not reopen a concluded matter merely because a different view was possible, but it could act to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure the ends of justice. Supervisory interference under Article 227 was declined. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:57:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44974 Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, read with Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, was treated as empowering the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record by recalling an earlier order and directing rehearing where the order had been passed under a demonstrable misapprehension. The Court distinguished such corrective procedural action from an impermissible review on merits: the Tribunal could not reopen a concluded matter merely because a different view was possible, but it could act to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure the ends of justice. Supervisory interference under Article 227 was declined. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44974