<?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>2001 (5) TMI 71 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48886</link>
    <description>Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record, meaning an error that is obvious and not one requiring prolonged argument or re-examination. The omission to discuss every ground raised in the memorandum of appeal, by itself, is not such a mistake. An application seeking rehearing on that basis was therefore not maintainable under Section 129B(2) and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 10:29:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 71 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48886</link>
      <description>Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record, meaning an error that is obvious and not one requiring prolonged argument or re-examination. The omission to discuss every ground raised in the memorandum of appeal, by itself, is not such a mistake. An application seeking rehearing on that basis was therefore not maintainable under Section 129B(2) and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>