<?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 (5) TMI 194 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51808</link>
    <description>A rectification application cannot be used to reopen a final order or secure a rehearing on the basis of a later relied-upon precedent. The Tribunal noted that the cited Supreme Court decision had not been pressed at the time of hearing and applied the Larger Bench principle that rectification of mistake is not an appeal in disguise. The application therefore could not be entertained to re-decide the matter and was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:59:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 194 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51808</link>
      <description>A rectification application cannot be used to reopen a final order or secure a rehearing on the basis of a later relied-upon precedent. The Tribunal noted that the cited Supreme Court decision had not been pressed at the time of hearing and applied the Larger Bench principle that rectification of mistake is not an appeal in disguise. The application therefore could not be entertained to re-decide the matter and was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>