https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102592 Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act remained applicable for redetermining duty liability even where the assessee had opted for the compound levy scheme under Rule 96ZO. The analysis notes that the impugned order had not actually determined production or redetermined duty under Section 3A(4); it had only addressed abatement for temporary closure under Rule 96ZO. The view that opting for the compound levy scheme automatically excluded Section 3A(4) was not accepted, and the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner for duty determination under that provision. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:49:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102592 Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act remained applicable for redetermining duty liability even where the assessee had opted for the compound levy scheme under Rule 96ZO. The analysis notes that the impugned order had not actually determined production or redetermined duty under Section 3A(4); it had only addressed abatement for temporary closure under Rule 96ZO. The view that opting for the compound levy scheme automatically excluded Section 3A(4) was not accepted, and the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner for duty determination under that provision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102592