Compounded levy scheme bars refund based on actual production when duty is fixed by annual capacity.

Under the compounded levy scheme, refund and duty recomputation on the basis of actual production were held not permissible where duty liability was fixed by annual capacity under the governing statute and rules. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's settled view in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, noting that the issue had already been decided against the assessee and that the review petition had been dismissed. The argument that the rules could not restrict the benefit of the statute did not override the binding precedent. The claim for refund based on actual production was therefore rejected and the denial of relief was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund and duty determination on the basis of actual production under section 3A(4) despite the annual capacity-based scheme and the applicable rules.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the duty liability under the compounded levy scheme could be reopened on the basis of actual production. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had already settled the issue against the assessee in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills and that the review petition had also been dismissed. In that view, the statutory and rule-based scheme governing annual capacity of production did not permit the relief claimed by the appellant. The argument that the rules could not curtail the benefit of the statute did not assist the appellant in the face of the binding decision.

Conclusion: The claim for refund on the basis of actual production was not tenable and the order denying relief was upheld against the appellant.

---