Rule 96ZO(3) does not bar Section 3A(4) redetermination where duty must be reassessed on actual production.

Opting for assessment under Rule 96ZO(3) did not, by itself, bar an assessee from seeking redetermination under Section 3A(4) where the statutory scheme permitted duty to be assessed on actual production. The Tribunal followed an earlier view on the interaction between the two provisions and found that the Commissioner had not undertaken the necessary factual exercise on actual production. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh examination and redetermination of duty liability, with the impugned order set aside and pre-deposit dispensed with.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who had opted for assessment under Rule 96ZO(3) could still claim the benefit of Section 3A(4), and whether the matter required remand for redetermination of duty liability on the basis of actual production.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the same question had already been examined in an earlier decision dealing with the interaction between Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 3A(4). Following that view, it held that the assessee was not precluded from seeking the benefit of Section 3A(4) merely because duty had been opted under Rule 96ZO(3). The Tribunal also accepted that the Commissioner had not examined the case for redetermination of duty liability on the basis of actual production and that the relevant factual exercise had to be undertaken at the original stage.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to seek the benefit of Section 3A(4), and the matter was required to be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh examination and redetermination of duty liability.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were disposed of by remand after dispensing with pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme permits redetermination on the basis of actual production, opting for a concessional procedure under Rule 96ZO(3) does not by itself bar recourse to Section 3A(4).

---