https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54103 The Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the ROM application as it was not pursued by the counsel. The ROM application was deemed time-barred as it was filed after the six-month period. The argument for applying a previous four-year limitation period was rejected, as the amended law requires all ROM applications to be filed within six months. The ROM application lacked merit as no clear mistake of fact or law was found in the final order, and the grounds for recall were deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to time limits and requiring substantial grounds for rectification requests. en-us Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:27:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54103 The Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the ROM application as it was not pursued by the counsel. The ROM application was deemed time-barred as it was filed after the six-month period. The argument for applying a previous four-year limitation period was rejected, as the amended law requires all ROM applications to be filed within six months. The ROM application lacked merit as no clear mistake of fact or law was found in the final order, and the grounds for recall were deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to time limits and requiring substantial grounds for rectification requests. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54103