https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791069 Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to correcting an obvious, patent and self-evident mistake, and cannot be used to review the merits or re-appreciate evidence. The Tribunal found the applicant was effectively seeking reconsideration of the confirmed GTA service demand by disputing factual findings on tax discharge and reverse charge conditions, and held that no mistake apparent from the record was shown. It also held that the limitation plea relating to GTA service could not be carried over from the separate Mining Service finding because the two issues rested on different factual and legal bases. The rectification application was rejected as not maintainable. en-us Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791069 Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is confined to correcting an obvious, patent and self-evident mistake, and cannot be used to review the merits or re-appreciate evidence. The Tribunal found the applicant was effectively seeking reconsideration of the confirmed GTA service demand by disputing factual findings on tax discharge and reverse charge conditions, and held that no mistake apparent from the record was shown. It also held that the limitation plea relating to GTA service could not be carried over from the separate Mining Service finding because the two issues rested on different factual and legal bases. The rectification application was rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791069