meeting was set for/at

[Tan Elaine]

The time of the meeting was set for 2 p.m.
The time of the meeting was at 2 p.m.

Do both sentences have the same meaning? Is it necessary to use 'was set for' to differentiate the meaning between the two sentences.

Thanks in advance.

[Raymott]

The time of the meeting was set for 2 p.m.
The time of the meeting was at 2 p.m.

Do both sentences have the same meaning? Is it necessary to use 'was set for' to differentiate the meaning between the two sentences.

Thanks in advance.

It's easier just to say "The meeting is/was at 2pm" depending on whether it's been held yet.
2pm cannot be anything but a time - so 'the time' isn't necessary.

Using "time" you could end with an ambiguous sentence, such as:
"The time for the meeting was set at 2pm". (At 2pm, we set the time for the meeting for 4pm)".

[Tan Elaine]

Thanks, Raymott

Is it correct to say "The meeting was set at 2pm for 10pm" with 'time' excluded?

[Raymott]

Thanks, Raymott

Is it correct to say "The meeting was set at 2pm for 10pm" with 'time' excluded?

You could say that if giving that information is important. It makes sense.