https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45311 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme allowed a manufacturer to discharge excise duty by paying a fixed lump sum, with an express bar on claiming the benefit of the proviso to Section 3A(3) or Section 3A(4) after exercising the option. The Court held that an assessee who voluntarily chose that scheme could not retain its advantages while disowning its disadvantages, so reduced utilisation from power cuts did not justify abatement or re-determination of duty. Earlier contrary observations were treated as per incuriam because they overlooked the rule's express exclusion. The challenge to Rule 96ZO(3) therefore failed. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:30:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45311 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme allowed a manufacturer to discharge excise duty by paying a fixed lump sum, with an express bar on claiming the benefit of the proviso to Section 3A(3) or Section 3A(4) after exercising the option. The Court held that an assessee who voluntarily chose that scheme could not retain its advantages while disowning its disadvantages, so reduced utilisation from power cuts did not justify abatement or re-determination of duty. Earlier contrary observations were treated as per incuriam because they overlooked the rule's express exclusion. The challenge to Rule 96ZO(3) therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45311