https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95146 Refund claims were restricted to amounts covered by the statutory six-month limitation period, and earlier claims remained barred even though they were said to have been filed pursuant to Supreme Court directions. A rectification request under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could succeed only if there was a mistake apparent from the record; an error needing long-drawn reasoning did not qualify. On that basis, no apparent mistake was shown and the rectification application was untenable. en-us Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:36:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95146 Refund claims were restricted to amounts covered by the statutory six-month limitation period, and earlier claims remained barred even though they were said to have been filed pursuant to Supreme Court directions. A rectification request under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could succeed only if there was a mistake apparent from the record; an error needing long-drawn reasoning did not qualify. On that basis, no apparent mistake was shown and the rectification application was untenable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95146