https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52114 A remand confined the Commissioner to re-determine duty liability under Section 3A(4) by considering the dates on which the statutory option was exercised, and the authority could not enlarge that remit by reopening the entire controversy. Letters expressing an intention to pay duty on actual production basis were treated as valid exercises of option for Section 3A(4), and did not require a prior formal opt-in under Rule 96ZO(1) as a condition precedent. The commentary notes that a clearly expressed option for the relevant subsequent period cannot be rejected merely for want of formal exclusionary wording. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:15:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52114 A remand confined the Commissioner to re-determine duty liability under Section 3A(4) by considering the dates on which the statutory option was exercised, and the authority could not enlarge that remit by reopening the entire controversy. Letters expressing an intention to pay duty on actual production basis were treated as valid exercises of option for Section 3A(4), and did not require a prior formal opt-in under Rule 96ZO(1) as a condition precedent. The commentary notes that a clearly expressed option for the relevant subsequent period cannot be rejected merely for want of formal exclusionary wording. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52114