2000 (2) TMI 101 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition dismissed due to prior lump sum election barring normal assessment mode (4)

The Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner's prior election for lump sum payment precluded recourse to the normal assessment mode u/s 3A(4). ... Lump sum assessment - Section 3A(4) - representation for actual production - capacity-based assessment under Section 3A(2) - option to avail scheme and estoppel from resiling - discretion under Article 226 of the ConstitutionLump sum assessment - Section 3A(4) - representation for actual production - option to avail scheme and estoppel from resiling - discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution - Whether the petitioner, having opted for the lump sum payment scheme under Rule 96ZO(3), was entitled to have its representation under Section 3A(4) decided and to be assessed by actual production instead of the lump sum method - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Rule 96ZO(3) provides an optional lump sum method of assessment as an alternative to the normal capacity-based assessment under Section 3A(2), and expressly bars a manufacturer who avails the lump sum scheme from claiming benefit under Section 3A(4). Having itself requested and accepted the lump sum method, the petitioner could not thereafter seek reassessment by the normal method; to allow withdrawal would permit the petitioner to 'blow hot and cold at the same time'. The Court relied on precedent recognising the optional, convenient and final character of such lump sum schemes and observed that the petitioner's omission to disclose his option for lump sum payment further disentitled him to relief under Article 226. Consequently Section 3A(4) was not available to the petitioner once Rule 96ZO(3) was availed of, and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to override that election. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]Petition dismissed; petitioner not entitled to invoke Section 3A(4) after opting for lump sum assessment under Rule 96ZO(3), and writ relief under Article 226 declined.Final Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed: election to avail the optional lump sum assessment under Rule 96ZO(3) precludes resort to Section 3A(4) for assessment by actual production, and the Court will not interfere under Article 226 where the petitioner has availed that scheme and failed to disclose the option. Issues Involved: The writ petition seeks mandamus for deciding the petitioner's application u/s 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act and refraining from coercive measures until actual production determination u/s 3A(4).Issue 1 - Provisional and Final Determination: The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Casted Blooms, sought re-determination u/s 3A(4) after provisional and final determinations were made u/s 3A(1). Despite representations and submissions, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition.Issue 2 - Scheme for Lump Sum Assessment: The Department contended that the petitioner opted for a lump sum assessment scheme u/r 96ZO(3), which precludes availing benefits u/s 3A(4). The Court noted that the provision for lump sum assessment was for convenience, and once opted for, the normal mode u/s 3A(4) is not available.Precedents and Discretion: Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that opting for a lump sum scheme binds the assessee, preventing challenges thereafter. The petitioner's concealment of opting for lump sum payment further disentitled discretionary jurisdiction u/r Article 226 of the Constitution.Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petition based on the petitioner's prior election for lump sum payment, which precluded recourse to the normal assessment mode u/s 3A(4). The Court's decision was supported by legal precedents and the petitioner's failure to disclose the lump sum payment option.