Compounded levy duty election bars later redetermination on actual production under the alternative statutory scheme.

An assessee who elects to pay duty under the compounded levy procedure cannot later seek redetermination of liability on the basis of actual production under the alternative capacity-determination mechanism. Section 3A(4) and Rule 96ZP(3) operate as separate procedures, and a mixed or hybrid benefit is not permitted; once duty is paid under the opted scheme on installed capacity, redetermination on actual production basis is unavailable. The challenge to the capacity computation also failed because no specific parameter used in the calculation was disputed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who has opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules can subsequently seek redetermination of duty liability on the basis of actual production under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The assessee had elected to discharge duty under the compounded levy option. The governing legal principle applied was that the scheme under Section 3A(4) and the scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) are alternative procedures, and the assessee cannot combine them to obtain a mixed or hybrid benefit. Once duty is paid under the opted scheme based on installed capacity, the mechanism for redetermination on actual production basis is not available. The challenge to the capacity determination also failed because no specific parameter used in the computation was disputed.

Conclusion: The claim for redetermination on actual production basis was rejected and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee, having elected the compounded levy route, could not invoke the actual production formula under the alternate statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee who has opted for duty payment under the compounded levy procedure cannot later seek redetermination on actual production basis under the alternative capacity-determination mechanism.

---