https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45444 An assessee that voluntarily chose the lump sum payment scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) could not later seek redetermination of duty under Section 3A(4), because the two mechanisms were treated as mutually inconsistent and the election under the optional scheme was binding. The court also treated the concealment of the earlier election as a factor against discretionary relief under Article 226. On that basis, writ relief was declined and the assessee was held bound by its chosen mode of assessment. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:10:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45444 An assessee that voluntarily chose the lump sum payment scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) could not later seek redetermination of duty under Section 3A(4), because the two mechanisms were treated as mutually inconsistent and the election under the optional scheme was binding. The court also treated the concealment of the earlier election as a factor against discretionary relief under Article 226. On that basis, writ relief was declined and the assessee was held bound by its chosen mode of assessment. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45444