https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54688 A corrigendum cannot be used to introduce a fresh penalty proposal under Rule 173Q after the noticee has already replied to the original show cause notice, and the penalty proposal was therefore not sustainable. Penalty was also held unwarranted on the facts because the clearances were made on budget day in the manner followed by the assessee and the differential duty was voluntarily paid, negating any deliberate duty evasion. Interest under Section 11AB could not be levied where the duty had been discharged before that provision came into force on 14-5-2001, so the interest demand was not recoverable. The penalty and interest demands were set aside. en-us Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:42:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54688 A corrigendum cannot be used to introduce a fresh penalty proposal under Rule 173Q after the noticee has already replied to the original show cause notice, and the penalty proposal was therefore not sustainable. Penalty was also held unwarranted on the facts because the clearances were made on budget day in the manner followed by the assessee and the differential duty was voluntarily paid, negating any deliberate duty evasion. Interest under Section 11AB could not be levied where the duty had been discharged before that provision came into force on 14-5-2001, so the interest demand was not recoverable. The penalty and interest demands were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54688