https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791230 A rectification application failed because no mistake apparent on the record was shown in the final order. The applicant argued that certain submissions had not been separately discussed, but the order had already examined the relevant factual process and applied the governing law on manufacture, including Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the statutory definition of manufacture. As the issue had been decided in line with binding Supreme Court authority, the absence of separate discussion on every submission did not amount to a patent error warranting rectification or recall. The rejection of rectification was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 07:29:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791230 A rectification application failed because no mistake apparent on the record was shown in the final order. The applicant argued that certain submissions had not been separately discussed, but the order had already examined the relevant factual process and applied the governing law on manufacture, including Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the statutory definition of manufacture. As the issue had been decided in line with binding Supreme Court authority, the absence of separate discussion on every submission did not amount to a patent error warranting rectification or recall. The rejection of rectification was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791230