https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74547 A late request for retest made beyond the 90-day period under Rule 56(4) was not condoned where the only explanation was ignorance of the time limit. The assessee, a large textile mill with quality-control facilities, was treated as having sufficient awareness of the retest right, and its own conduct undermined the plea for relief. On those facts, denial of retest was upheld and the demand was not disturbed. The analysis also noted that it was unnecessary to decide whether the 90-day period was strictly mandatory in every case. en-us Mon, 21 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:14:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74547 A late request for retest made beyond the 90-day period under Rule 56(4) was not condoned where the only explanation was ignorance of the time limit. The assessee, a large textile mill with quality-control facilities, was treated as having sufficient awareness of the retest right, and its own conduct undermined the plea for relief. On those facts, denial of retest was upheld and the demand was not disturbed. The analysis also noted that it was unnecessary to decide whether the 90-day period was strictly mandatory in every case. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74547