<?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>2002 (8) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48925</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 35C of the Central Excise Act was unavailable where the larger bench had answered only the questions actually referred to it. The applicants argued that a separate issue arising in their appeals had not been considered, but non-reference of that issue did not create a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification applications were therefore rejected, and the applicants were left free to pursue the appeals before the regular bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48925</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 35C of the Central Excise Act was unavailable where the larger bench had answered only the questions actually referred to it. The applicants argued that a separate issue arising in their appeals had not been considered, but non-reference of that issue did not create a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification applications were therefore rejected, and the applicants were left free to pursue the appeals before the regular bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>