https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82214 A rectification application was allowed because the earlier order had overlooked the timely receipt of the delay-condonation application in the registry, amounting to a mistake apparent from the record. On limitation, an appeal had to be filed within three months from communication of the impugned order under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The explanation of departmental processing and legal opinion was held insufficient cause, and inter-departmental correspondence did not justify exercise of discretion under Section 35B(5). The delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal remained time-barred. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 16:59:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82214 A rectification application was allowed because the earlier order had overlooked the timely receipt of the delay-condonation application in the registry, amounting to a mistake apparent from the record. On limitation, an appeal had to be filed within three months from communication of the impugned order under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The explanation of departmental processing and legal opinion was held insufficient cause, and inter-departmental correspondence did not justify exercise of discretion under Section 35B(5). The delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal remained time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82214