https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100612 Once a manufacturer elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3), that election binds the relevant period and duty cannot be recomputed on the basis of actual production under Section 3A(4) for the same period. The assessee may opt out only for a subsequent period, not retrospectively for the period already covered by the chosen scheme. The Tribunal treated the differential duty demand as consistent with the statutory scheme and binding precedent, and the order sustaining duty under the declared ACP basis was maintained. en-us Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100612 Once a manufacturer elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3), that election binds the relevant period and duty cannot be recomputed on the basis of actual production under Section 3A(4) for the same period. The assessee may opt out only for a subsequent period, not retrospectively for the period already covered by the chosen scheme. The Tribunal treated the differential duty demand as consistent with the statutory scheme and binding precedent, and the order sustaining duty under the declared ACP basis was maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100612