https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112891 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's deviation from fixing duty liability based on actual production to confirming demand based on annual capacity was contentious. The appellant's failure to exercise the payment option under 96ZP(3) for the relevant years led to the assessment being based on Section 3A(4) instead. As the appellant did not opt for Rule 96ZP(3), the duty liability should align with Section 3A(4) and the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal granted an unconditional stay, emphasizing the necessity of correctly exercising options to determine duty calculation basis. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 13:45:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112891 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's deviation from fixing duty liability based on actual production to confirming demand based on annual capacity was contentious. The appellant's failure to exercise the payment option under 96ZP(3) for the relevant years led to the assessment being based on Section 3A(4) instead. As the appellant did not opt for Rule 96ZP(3), the duty liability should align with Section 3A(4) and the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal granted an unconditional stay, emphasizing the necessity of correctly exercising options to determine duty calculation basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112891