https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251384 Furnishing the declaration prescribed under Rule 96ZO(4) was treated as a valid exercise of the compounded levy option under Rule 96ZO(3), because the assessee had consistently claimed to have opted for the lump-sum scheme and could not later deny the declaration. The duty demand for periods after 1.4.1998 was sustained where the second ACP order remained undisturbed and continued to govern liability. However, the demand for 1.9.1997 to 31.3.1998, which depended on the first ACP determination, could not stand once that order had been set aside and had to be worked out afresh after reconsideration. 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 Furnishing the declaration prescribed under Rule 96ZO(4) was treated as a valid exercise of the compounded levy option under Rule 96ZO(3), because the assessee had consistently claimed to have opted for the lump-sum scheme and could not later deny the declaration. The duty demand for periods after 1.4.1998 was sustained where the second ACP order remained undisturbed and continued to govern liability. However, the demand for 1.9.1997 to 31.3.1998, which depended on the first ACP determination, could not stand once that order had been set aside and had to be worked out afresh after reconsideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251384