https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251384 The court partly allowed the appeal, requiring a fresh ACP order and show cause notice for the period from September 1997 to March 1998. For other periods, the appeal was dismissed, upholding duty demands based on the second ACP order. The court affirmed the requirement of a declaration under Rule 96ZO(4) for opting to pay duty on a lump sum basis. The appeal was thus "partly allowed" with no costs, and M.P.No.1 of 2007 was closed. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251384 The court partly allowed the appeal, requiring a fresh ACP order and show cause notice for the period from September 1997 to March 1998. For other periods, the appeal was dismissed, upholding duty demands based on the second ACP order. The court affirmed the requirement of a declaration under Rule 96ZO(4) for opting to pay duty on a lump sum basis. The appeal was thus "partly allowed" with no costs, and M.P.No.1 of 2007 was closed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251384