Rule 96ZP election bars closure-period abatement when duty is paid under the opted scheme.

An assessee who elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot also claim abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) for a period of factory closure. The Tribunal noted that, in the absence of any stay of the binding Supreme Court precedent, the earlier line of decisions followed by the jurisdictional High Court governed the issue. On that basis, the opted payment scheme excluded remission for stoppage of production for more than seven days, so the abatement claim was not admissible and the adjudicating authority's order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could claim abatement for the period of closure under Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a claim for abatement of duty for the period during which the factory remained closed. The relevant levy was discharged under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any stay of the binding precedent of the Supreme Court, the principle laid down in earlier decisions and followed by the jurisdictional High Court governed the controversy. On that basis, the option to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) carried the consequence that the assessee could not seek abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) merely because production had stopped for more than seven days.

Conclusion: The claim for abatement was not admissible and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of the adjudicating authority was sustained and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee who elects the payment mechanism under Rule 96ZP(3) cannot simultaneously claim abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) for a closure period, as the elected scheme excludes such remission.

---