Section 3A(4) prevails over Rule 96ZO(3), preserving the assessee's option for actual-production duty determination.

Section 3A(4) was treated as prevailing over Rule 96ZO(3), so an assessee who had opted for duty payment under the rule could still seek determination of duty on the basis of actual production. The Tribunal distinguished authority dealing only with the vires of Section 3A and held that it did not answer the narrower question of continued entitlement under Section 3A(4). The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Section 3A(4) could be denied merely because the assessee had opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3), and whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration under Section 3A(4).

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision relied upon had examined the interaction between Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 3A(4) in depth and had held that the statutory provision prevailed over the rule. The Tribunal also distinguished the High Court decision cited by the Revenue, observing that it dealt with the vires of Section 3A and not with the specific question whether an assessee who had opted under Rule 96ZO(3) could still seek the benefit of Section 3A(4). On that reasoning, the Tribunal accepted that the assessee retained the option to claim determination of duty with reference to actual production under Section 3A(4).

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to invoke Section 3A(4) notwithstanding the option exercised under Rule 96ZO(3), and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination and decision in accordance with law.

---