https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325299 An assessee that had opted for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) could not be treated as having switched out of that scheme merely because a closure notice was issued. A notice of closure did not amount to a formal withdrawal from Rule 96ZP(3), and the cited Supreme Court position required any opting out to operate only from the start of the next financial year, not twice within the same year. Accordingly, determination of duty for 1999-2000 under Rule 96ZP(1) was unsustainable, and the period remained governed by Rule 96ZP(3). en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325299 An assessee that had opted for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) could not be treated as having switched out of that scheme merely because a closure notice was issued. A notice of closure did not amount to a formal withdrawal from Rule 96ZP(3), and the cited Supreme Court position required any opting out to operate only from the start of the next financial year, not twice within the same year. Accordingly, determination of duty for 1999-2000 under Rule 96ZP(1) was unsustainable, and the period remained governed by Rule 96ZP(3). Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325299