https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786237 Rectification under Section 35C(2) was confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record, not re-appreciation of evidence or reconsideration of factual findings. The challenge to penalty under Section 78 failed because the final order had already stated that penalty would be re-determined by reference to the demand sustained in remand, so no apparent error was shown. The objections concerning the RCC bridge and ash bund findings also required fresh assessment of work orders, clauses, photographs, and facts, which lay outside the limited rectification jurisdiction. No mistake apparent from the record was established, and the rectification request was held not maintainable. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786237 Rectification under Section 35C(2) was confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record, not re-appreciation of evidence or reconsideration of factual findings. The challenge to penalty under Section 78 failed because the final order had already stated that penalty would be re-determined by reference to the demand sustained in remand, so no apparent error was shown. The objections concerning the RCC bridge and ash bund findings also required fresh assessment of work orders, clauses, photographs, and facts, which lay outside the limited rectification jurisdiction. No mistake apparent from the record was established, and the rectification request was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786237