https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45085 A revision petition challenging a penalty based on the same confessional statement could not be rejected as time-barred when a connected revision had already been entertained and allowed on merits after the statement was found to have been taken under coercion. Because both revisions were supported by applications for condonation of delay, rejecting only the second petition on limitation was inconsistent and unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter ended without remand. en-us Tue, 13 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:18:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45085 A revision petition challenging a penalty based on the same confessional statement could not be rejected as time-barred when a connected revision had already been entertained and allowed on merits after the statement was found to have been taken under coercion. Because both revisions were supported by applications for condonation of delay, rejecting only the second petition on limitation was inconsistent and unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter ended without remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45085