Compounded levy does not bar redetermination of duty liability where precedent permits reassessment under the excise scheme.

An assessee opting for the compounded levy scheme was discussed as not being barred, for the relevant period, from seeking redetermination of duty liability where the governing precedent permits it. The note states that the controversy on duty reassessment under the Central Excise framework was resolved by following earlier Tribunal decisions, and that the refusal to redetermine duty merely because the scheme had been opted for was not sustained. It records that the impugned order was set aside and redetermination in accordance with the statutory provision was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who had opted for compounded levy under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could seek redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the relevant period.

Analysis: The appeal was confined to the period 1-9-1997 to 31-3-1998. The Tribunal treated the controversy as covered by its earlier decision in Minakshi Castings and Inder Steels P. Ltd., and followed that view. On that basis, the refusal to redetermine duty liability merely because the assessee had opted for the compounded levy scheme was not sustained.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the relevant period.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the Commissioner was directed to redetermine duty liability in accordance with Section 3A(4), so the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee under the compounded levy scheme is not barred, for the relevant period, from seeking redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) where the governing precedent so permits.

---