https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332525 The Court rejected the application seeking condonation of a 267-day delay in presenting the Memorandum of Review under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It held that the review application, based on the amended Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not maintainable as the original order was influenced by a concession, and the subsequent amendment did not warrant a review. The Court emphasized that the mistake of counsel in not pointing out the amended law did not meet the criteria for review under the legal framework, ultimately dismissing the review application. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:05:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332525 The Court rejected the application seeking condonation of a 267-day delay in presenting the Memorandum of Review under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It held that the review application, based on the amended Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not maintainable as the original order was influenced by a concession, and the subsequent amendment did not warrant a review. The Court emphasized that the mistake of counsel in not pointing out the amended law did not meet the criteria for review under the legal framework, ultimately dismissing the review application. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332525