https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120348 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. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:15:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120348 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120348