https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52788 A manufacturer that had opted for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) could not discontinue it during the same financial year or seek assessment under Section 3 on an apportioned furnace-capacity basis for non-notified goods. Duty remained payable under Section 3A on the capacity fixed by the Commissioner, and any switch to actual production basis arose only after the financial year ended. A separate demand relating to steel castings could not be enforced in appeal because the impugned order contained no confirming finding on that demand and the department filed no cross-appeal. The challenge to the compounded levy scheme therefore failed, while the castings demand was left unenforced in this appeal. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:52:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52788 A manufacturer that had opted for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZO(3) could not discontinue it during the same financial year or seek assessment under Section 3 on an apportioned furnace-capacity basis for non-notified goods. Duty remained payable under Section 3A on the capacity fixed by the Commissioner, and any switch to actual production basis arose only after the financial year ended. A separate demand relating to steel castings could not be enforced in appeal because the impugned order contained no confirming finding on that demand and the department filed no cross-appeal. The challenge to the compounded levy scheme therefore failed, while the castings demand was left unenforced in this appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52788