https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355240 The Tribunal held that the mention of 13 years in an order did not imply an error, as it referred to the period since the initiation of the case in 2001, not from a subsequent re-adjudication order in 2016. The ROM application by the Revenue, challenging this reference, was dismissed, affirming that the case had indeed been ongoing for over 13 years. This case underscores the significance of accurately interpreting temporal references in legal documents and the importance of clear and precise documentation to prevent misunderstandings. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:23:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355240 The Tribunal held that the mention of 13 years in an order did not imply an error, as it referred to the period since the initiation of the case in 2001, not from a subsequent re-adjudication order in 2016. The ROM application by the Revenue, challenging this reference, was dismissed, affirming that the case had indeed been ongoing for over 13 years. This case underscores the significance of accurately interpreting temporal references in legal documents and the importance of clear and precise documentation to prevent misunderstandings. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355240