Functus Officio and confiscation limits bar post-order interest levy and asset confiscation under the governing rule.

A post-order corrigendum could not lawfully introduce an interest levy after the adjudicating authority had become functus officio, because in the absence of express statutory power the original adjudication could not be varied to impose a fresh burden; the interest demand was therefore unsustainable. Confiscation of plant and machinery was also impermissible under Rule 173Q, because confiscation under sub-rule (2) was confined to the contraventions covered by the specified cases in sub-rule (1), and the alleged breach under sub-rule (1)(bb) did not fall within that authorising framework; the confiscation was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether interest could be levied by a corrigendum after the adjudication order had been passed; and (ii) whether confiscation of plant and machinery was permissible under Rule 173Q where the contravention was under sub-rule (1)(bb).

Issue (i): whether interest could be levied by a corrigendum after the adjudication order had been passed.

Analysis: The levy of interest was introduced through a corrigendum issued after the original adjudication order. Once the adjudicating authority had passed the order, it became functus officio and could not review or vary its own decision in the absence of express statutory authority. A post-order corrigendum could not validly expand the scope of the original adjudication to fasten an additional levy.

Conclusion: The levy of interest by corrigendum was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation of plant and machinery was permissible under Rule 173Q where the contravention was under sub-rule (1)(bb).

Analysis: Rule 173Q(2) authorised confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery and connected assets only in cases falling within the contraventions specified in sub-rule (1) referred to in that provision. The contravention in the present matter was under sub-rule (1)(bb), which did not fall within the class of cases covered by sub-rule (2). Accordingly, the statutory basis for confiscation of plant and machinery was absent.

Conclusion: The confiscation of plant and machinery was not legally permissible and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned levy of interest and the confiscation of plant and machinery both failed, and the assessee obtained complete relief on the substantive issues decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrigendum cannot be used to impose a fresh levy after the adjudicating authority has become functus officio, and confiscation can be ordered only when the case falls within the specific contraventions and conditions authorising such confiscation under the governing rule.

---