https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107895 A timely application by the Commissioner under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act was not rendered time-barred merely because the registry later required separate filings for different assessees under Explanation (2) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The initial common filing was within limitation, and the later procedural objection did not create a fresh delay for limitation purposes. The condonation application was therefore unnecessary, and the Revenue's limitation position was accepted. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:57:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107895 A timely application by the Commissioner under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act was not rendered time-barred merely because the registry later required separate filings for different assessees under Explanation (2) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The initial common filing was within limitation, and the later procedural objection did not create a fresh delay for limitation purposes. The condonation application was therefore unnecessary, and the Revenue's limitation position was accepted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107895