https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254745 A compounded levy election under Rule 96 ZO(3) was treated as continuing from year to year and did not require a fresh annual option under Rule 96 ZO(4). A manufacturer who had entered the scheme remained bound by it unless an express opt-out was shown. Correspondence seeking re-determination of duty on the basis of actual production was only a protest against the quantum of duty and did not amount to withdrawal from the scheme. The same principle also supported the view that a taxpayer cannot retain the compounded levy benefit and shift to assessment on actual production basis under Section 3A(4) within the same cycle. The assessee remained liable to duty for 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3). en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254745 A compounded levy election under Rule 96 ZO(3) was treated as continuing from year to year and did not require a fresh annual option under Rule 96 ZO(4). A manufacturer who had entered the scheme remained bound by it unless an express opt-out was shown. Correspondence seeking re-determination of duty on the basis of actual production was only a protest against the quantum of duty and did not amount to withdrawal from the scheme. The same principle also supported the view that a taxpayer cannot retain the compounded levy benefit and shift to assessment on actual production basis under Section 3A(4) within the same cycle. The assessee remained liable to duty for 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3). Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254745