https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47762 Section 3A of the Central Excise Act imposed duty on production of excisable goods, while annual production capacity served only as the assessment measure. Rule 96ZO(3) offered an optional lump-sum, composition-like payment procedure for an assessee's benefit. Election of that option excluded abatement and redetermination based on actual production under Section 3A. The mutually exclusive procedures were treated as non-discriminatory because an assessee voluntarily choosing the optional scheme could not simultaneously claim benefits available under the alternative assessment method. The validity of Section 3A and the connected rules and notifications was upheld. en-us Mon, 08 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47762 Section 3A of the Central Excise Act imposed duty on production of excisable goods, while annual production capacity served only as the assessment measure. Rule 96ZO(3) offered an optional lump-sum, composition-like payment procedure for an assessee's benefit. Election of that option excluded abatement and redetermination based on actual production under Section 3A. The mutually exclusive procedures were treated as non-discriminatory because an assessee voluntarily choosing the optional scheme could not simultaneously claim benefits available under the alternative assessment method. The validity of Section 3A and the connected rules and notifications was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47762