Duty election under Rule 96ZO(3) binds the relevant period, barring retrospective reassessment on actual production under Section 3A(4).

Once a manufacturer elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3), that election binds the relevant period and duty cannot be recomputed on the basis of actual production under Section 3A(4) for the same period. The assessee may opt out only for a subsequent period, not retrospectively for the period already covered by the chosen scheme. The Tribunal treated the differential duty demand as consistent with the statutory scheme and binding precedent, and the order sustaining duty under the declared ACP basis was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who had opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3) could, for the same period, opt out of that scheme and claim duty liability on the basis of actual production under Section 3A(4).

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the settled position that the option to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3) governs the relevant period once exercised. The assessee may opt out for a subsequent period, but cannot retrospectively change the basis of duty for the very period during which the scheme was chosen. The demand for differential duty was therefore consistent with the statutory scheme and the binding precedent relied upon by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to claim assessment on actual production for the period for which it had already elected to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3); the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order demanding duty on the basis of the declared ACP under the opted scheme was sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a manufacturer elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3), the election binds the manufacturer for that period and the duty cannot be recomputed on actual production for the same period under Section 3A(4).

---