https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47281 The Court directed the Excise Commissioner to verify if the petitioners opted for lump-sum duty payment under Rule 96ZO. If not, a review of excise duty orders for potential abatement benefits was ordered. Even if the lump-sum option was chosen, circumstances aligning with the second proviso could warrant a reevaluation of duty levied, with petitioners entitled to a hearing. The judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying options chosen by petitioners and potential adjustments to excise duty assessments based on specific circumstances and legal provisions. en-us Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:52:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47281 The Court directed the Excise Commissioner to verify if the petitioners opted for lump-sum duty payment under Rule 96ZO. If not, a review of excise duty orders for potential abatement benefits was ordered. Even if the lump-sum option was chosen, circumstances aligning with the second proviso could warrant a reevaluation of duty levied, with petitioners entitled to a hearing. The judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying options chosen by petitioners and potential adjustments to excise duty assessments based on specific circumstances and legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47281