2000 (2) TMI 101 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The writ petition seeks mandamus for deciding the petitioner's application u/s 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act and refraining from coercive measures until actual production determination u/s 3A(4).

Issue 1 - Provisional and Final Determination:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Casted Blooms, sought re-determination u/s 3A(4) after provisional and final determinations were made u/s 3A(1). Despite representations and submissions, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Issue 2 - Scheme for Lump Sum Assessment:
The Department contended that the petitioner opted for a lump sum assessment scheme u/r 96ZO(3), which precludes availing benefits u/s 3A(4). The Court noted that the provision for lump sum assessment was for convenience, and once opted for, the normal mode u/s 3A(4) is not available.

Precedents and Discretion:
Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that opting for a lump sum scheme binds the assessee, preventing challenges thereafter. The petitioner's concealment of opting for lump sum payment further disentitled discretionary jurisdiction u/r Article 226 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition based on the petitioner's prior election for lump sum payment, which precluded recourse to the normal assessment mode u/s 3A(4). The Court's decision was supported by legal precedents and the petitioner's failure to disclose the lump sum payment option.