https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48846 The Supreme Court clarified that manufacturers opting for the composite scheme under Rule 96-ZO cannot claim abatement and must adhere to the payment structure outlined in the rule. The Court emphasized that the procedures under Rule 96-ZO and Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act are alternative and cannot be combined. The levy of tax under Section 3A is based on the production of goods, rejecting the argument that Rule 96-ZO(3) contradicts Section 3A(4). The Tribunal returned the reference for appropriate orders in individual appeals, prioritizing similar cases for early resolution following the Supreme Court's judgment. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:33:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48846 The Supreme Court clarified that manufacturers opting for the composite scheme under Rule 96-ZO cannot claim abatement and must adhere to the payment structure outlined in the rule. The Court emphasized that the procedures under Rule 96-ZO and Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act are alternative and cannot be combined. The levy of tax under Section 3A is based on the production of goods, rejecting the argument that Rule 96-ZO(3) contradicts Section 3A(4). The Tribunal returned the reference for appropriate orders in individual appeals, prioritizing similar cases for early resolution following the Supreme Court's judgment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48846