Concluded assessment not reopened by later omission of the enabling provision and rule; confirmed demand and penalty stood.

Later omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the corresponding rule did not unsettle a demand and penalty based on an assessment already completed and confirmed before the omission took effect. The key principle is that a concluded assessment is not reopened merely because the enabling provision and subordinate rule are later withdrawn. On that reasoning, the challenge to the confirmed demand and penalty failed, and the appeal was rejected against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty could be disturbed on the ground that Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the allied rule had been omitted after the assessment had already been finalized.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the effect of the omission of the special compounding scheme after the adjudication order had already attained finality. The assessee relied on the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the disappearance of the corresponding rule, contending that the demand and penalty could no longer be enforced. The determining factor, however, was that the assessment had been completed and the demand confirmed well before the omission came into force. In that situation, the later omission did not justify unsettling a concluded assessment or reopening matters already finalized.

Conclusion: The challenge to the demand and penalty failed, and the appeal was rejected against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment that has already been finally completed is not reopened merely because the enabling provision and the corresponding subordinate rule are later omitted.

---