<?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>2026 (7) TMI 475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794589</link>
    <description>Rectification under the Customs Act is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen merits. The Tribunal treated acknowledged duty-computation errors, including wrongly added additional duty and incorrect duty rates in certain Bills of Entry, as apparent errors because they affected the quantified demand; the duty computation was modified to that limited extent and the matter was remanded for fresh re-determination. Other grounds, including alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and the claim that there was no admission by the appellant, were rejected because they were already dealt with or lay outside rectification jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 09:08:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794589</link>
      <description>Rectification under the Customs Act is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen merits. The Tribunal treated acknowledged duty-computation errors, including wrongly added additional duty and incorrect duty rates in certain Bills of Entry, as apparent errors because they affected the quantified demand; the duty computation was modified to that limited extent and the matter was remanded for fresh re-determination. Other grounds, including alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and the claim that there was no admission by the appellant, were rejected because they were already dealt with or lay outside rectification jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>