https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271547 No clear and specific option for the compounded levy scheme was proved for the financial year 1998-99, and a request for redetermination of duty due to machinery change did not amount to continued election under the scheme; duty could not therefore be fastened under Rule 96ZP(3) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The omission of Section 3A with effect from 11.5.2001, without a saving clause, also caused pending proceedings under the compounded levy regime to abate; demand could not survive under the omitted provision. The duty demand and penalty were set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:21:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271547 No clear and specific option for the compounded levy scheme was proved for the financial year 1998-99, and a request for redetermination of duty due to machinery change did not amount to continued election under the scheme; duty could not therefore be fastened under Rule 96ZP(3) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The omission of Section 3A with effect from 11.5.2001, without a saving clause, also caused pending proceedings under the compounded levy regime to abate; demand could not survive under the omitted provision. The duty demand and penalty were set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271547