https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111829 A corrigendum issued to correct an earlier declaration under Rule 173B was treated as a rectification, not as an amendment attracting the 30-day requirement in Rule 173B(2)(c). The rule required a fresh declaration or amendment within 30 days only where an actual alteration became necessary, and it did not impose any time limit on a corrigendum. As no basis was shown to treat the correction as a substantive alteration, denial of exemption on that ground was not justified. The revenue appeal therefore failed, and the assessee's exemption was sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:41:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111829 A corrigendum issued to correct an earlier declaration under Rule 173B was treated as a rectification, not as an amendment attracting the 30-day requirement in Rule 173B(2)(c). The rule required a fresh declaration or amendment within 30 days only where an actual alteration became necessary, and it did not impose any time limit on a corrigendum. As no basis was shown to treat the correction as a substantive alteration, denial of exemption on that ground was not justified. The revenue appeal therefore failed, and the assessee's exemption was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111829