Compounded levy scheme relief accepted despite delayed fresh application, with refund linked to duty at the compounded rate.

Continuous operation under the compounded levy scheme justified acceptance of the applicants' explanation for not filing an immediate fresh application after the revised notification, so the omission was not treated as fatal. The benefit was tied to duty payment at the compounded rate for the covered period, although the record remained unclear on the nature of clearances for part of that period. The revision was allowed in favour of the applicants, with consequential refund linked to the scheme's applicability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision applicants were entitled to the benefit of the compounded levy scheme and consequential refund despite not filing an immediate fresh application after the revised notification and despite the factory having stopped working during part of the relevant period.

Analysis: The applicants had been working under the compounded levy arrangement and their explanation for not filing a fresh application immediately after the revised notification was accepted. The controlling consideration was that they were continuously operating under the scheme in its earlier and revised form, and the failure to file an immediate application was not treated as fatal. At the same time, the record left unclear the nature of clearances for the period 30-4-1975 to 11-5-1975, and the benefit was linked to payment of duty at the compounded rate for the covered period.

Conclusion: The explanation for delay was accepted and the revision was allowed in favour of the applicants.

---