https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370399 A manufacturer who elects the composite flat-rate scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) cannot thereafter seek redetermination of duty on the basis of annual capacity under Section 3A(4), because the two provisions are mutually exclusive alternative methods of levy and collection. The Bombay HC held that the assessee could not combine the benefits of both schemes, and that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter without applying the binding Supreme Court position on the incompatibility of the two mechanisms. The remand order was set aside and the matter sent back for fresh consideration under the correct legal position. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370399 A manufacturer who elects the composite flat-rate scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) cannot thereafter seek redetermination of duty on the basis of annual capacity under Section 3A(4), because the two provisions are mutually exclusive alternative methods of levy and collection. The Bombay HC held that the assessee could not combine the benefits of both schemes, and that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter without applying the binding Supreme Court position on the incompatibility of the two mechanisms. The remand order was set aside and the matter sent back for fresh consideration under the correct legal position. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370399