Compounded levy duty under Rule 96ZP(3) denied abatement for closure period without surrender of registration certificate.

Under the compounded levy scheme in Rule 96ZP(3), an assessee who elected that mode of duty payment could not claim abatement for a closure period unless the statutory condition for cessation was satisfied. The Tribunal held that the benefit and burden of the chosen scheme had to be accepted together, and that temporary closure by itself did not relieve duty liability where the registration certificate had not been surrendered. On that basis, the demand for duty during the closure period was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who had opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) could claim abatement of duty for the period of closure of the unit, when the registration certificate was not surrendered.

Analysis: The demand arose under the compounded levy arrangement applicable to the manufacture of hot re-rolled steel products. The Tribunal distinguished authorities relied upon by the appellant on the ground that abatement was considered there in a context where the statutory conditions for cessation had been satisfied. It held that, under the scheme governing payment under Rule 96ZP(3), the assessee takes both the advantages and the disadvantages of the option chosen. Since the registration certificate was admittedly not surrendered during the relevant period, the unit could not escape the duty liability merely on the plea of temporary closure.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to abatement of duty for the closure period, and the demand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because duty remained payable under the chosen compounded levy scheme despite the claimed closure of the unit, in the absence of surrender of the registration certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee opting for duty payment under Rule 96ZP(3) cannot claim abatement for closure of the unit unless the statutory precondition for cessation, such as surrender of registration, is satisfied.

---