Section 3A(4) duty redetermination remains applicable despite compound levy option under Rule 96ZO.

Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act remained applicable for redetermining duty liability even where the assessee had opted for the compound levy scheme under Rule 96ZO. The analysis notes that the impugned order had not actually determined production or redetermined duty under Section 3A(4); it had only addressed abatement for temporary closure under Rule 96ZO. The view that opting for the compound levy scheme automatically excluded Section 3A(4) was not accepted, and the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner for duty determination under that provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be applied for redetermination of duty liability even though the assessee had opted for payment under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The impugned order did not determine actual production or redetermine duty on that basis under Section 3A(4). It dealt only with abatement for temporary closure under Rule 96ZO. The conclusion that Section 3A(4) was inapplicable merely because the assessee had opted for the compound levy scheme was not accepted.

Conclusion: Section 3A(4) was held applicable and the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner for determination of duty liability in accordance with that provision.

---