https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45983 Under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, duty for pending matters was to be assessed for the relevant whole financial year on the basis accepted by the manufacturers. Rule 96ZO(3) was treated as an optional, capacity-based scheme operating as full and final discharge of duty liability, but only on the express condition that the manufacturer would not claim the benefit of Section 3A(4). Once that option was exercised, the manufacturer could not switch to actual-production assessment to obtain a lower liability. The mutually exclusive nature of the two modes was therefore affirmed. en-us Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Oct 2025 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45983 Under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, duty for pending matters was to be assessed for the relevant whole financial year on the basis accepted by the manufacturers. Rule 96ZO(3) was treated as an optional, capacity-based scheme operating as full and final discharge of duty liability, but only on the express condition that the manufacturer would not claim the benefit of Section 3A(4). Once that option was exercised, the manufacturer could not switch to actual-production assessment to obtain a lower liability. The mutually exclusive nature of the two modes was therefore affirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45983