https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91016 Where a statutory scheme for duty redetermination conflicts with a subordinate rule, the statute prevails. The text states that Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act governs redetermination of duty liability on the basis of actual production, and that this consideration cannot be denied merely because the assessee had opted to pay under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Failure to furnish supporting material may affect the merits of the claim, but it is not, by itself, a valid ground to refuse consideration under the statutory provision. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to produce evidence and be heard. en-us Thu, 20 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91016 Where a statutory scheme for duty redetermination conflicts with a subordinate rule, the statute prevails. The text states that Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act governs redetermination of duty liability on the basis of actual production, and that this consideration cannot be denied merely because the assessee had opted to pay under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Failure to furnish supporting material may affect the merits of the claim, but it is not, by itself, a valid ground to refuse consideration under the statutory provision. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to produce evidence and be heard. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91016