Optional lump sum excise scheme binds taxpayer; later redetermination under normal assessment was barred, and writ relief failed.

An assessee that voluntarily chose the lump sum payment scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) could not later seek redetermination of duty under Section 3A(4), because the two mechanisms were treated as mutually inconsistent and the election under the optional scheme was binding. The court also treated the concealment of the earlier election as a factor against discretionary relief under Article 226. On that basis, writ relief was declined and the assessee was held bound by its chosen mode of assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who had opted for the lump sum payment scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules could thereafter seek redetermination of duty under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be granted.

Analysis: The lump sum scheme was treated as an optional, simplified mode of assessment devised for the convenience of both assessee and department. The Court held that once the assessee had elected to pay duty on that basis, it could not later revert to the normal assessment mechanism and invoke Section 3A(4). The scheme and the right to seek redetermination under Section 3A(4) were viewed as mutually inconsistent, and the assessee was bound by its election. The Court also noted that the petition concealed the earlier option exercised by the assessee, which further weighed against the grant of discretionary relief.

Conclusion: The assessee could not claim redetermination under Section 3A(4) after opting for lump sum payment under Rule 96ZO(3), and relief under Article 226 was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the assessee was bound by its voluntary election to pay duty under the lump sum scheme and could not resile from that choice to seek normal assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxpayer who voluntarily opts for an optional lump sum assessment scheme cannot subsequently invoke a conflicting statutory mechanism for normal determination of liability, and such election bars discretionary writ relief.

---