https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46967 Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was treated as a valid capacity-based levy, and the constitutional challenge failed. Abatement under Section 3A(3) was unavailable because the statutory scheme required closure of the factory as a whole for the prescribed continuous period, not merely shutdown of one furnace while production continued elsewhere. Relief under Section 3A(4) was also unavailable after the assessee elected to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3), because the two procedures were alternative and the chosen mode could not later be bypassed. The writ petition was therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:46:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46967 Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was treated as a valid capacity-based levy, and the constitutional challenge failed. Abatement under Section 3A(3) was unavailable because the statutory scheme required closure of the factory as a whole for the prescribed continuous period, not merely shutdown of one furnace while production continued elsewhere. Relief under Section 3A(4) was also unavailable after the assessee elected to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3), because the two procedures were alternative and the chosen mode could not later be bypassed. The writ petition was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46967