https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111978 A duty demand introduced for the first time through a corrigendum after expiry of the Section 11A limitation period under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as time-barred and could not be sustained, even though duty had been debited during investigation because voluntary debit did not replace the statutory notice requirement. The corresponding penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also failed because it was founded on the same unsustainable demand. The order was set aside and relief followed accordingly. en-us Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:53:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111978 A duty demand introduced for the first time through a corrigendum after expiry of the Section 11A limitation period under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as time-barred and could not be sustained, even though duty had been debited during investigation because voluntary debit did not replace the statutory notice requirement. The corresponding penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also failed because it was founded on the same unsustainable demand. The order was set aside and relief followed accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111978