P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed a declaration under karvivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and paid the tax of Rs. 9,33,442/ -. By the impugned order dated 11-10-1999, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, who is the competent authority under the scheme, declined to extend the benefit under the scheme on the following reasoning:"you are not entitled to avail the benefits of the Karvivad Samadhan scheme 98 in respect of tax arrears demanded vide show-cause notice c. No. VIII/10/18/96 CT dated 11-4-1997 issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, guntur, since you have not paid the entire amount, i. e. , Rs. 13,22,879/- as payable under Section 88 (f) of the finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. " ( 2 ) BY the date of filing the declaration,the tax arrears quantified to be payable by the petitioner as per the show-cause notice dated 11-04-1997 were Rs. 26,45,757/ -. By an order dated 15-12-1999, which was passed after the last date stipulated in the scheme, the same duty was determined after over-ruling the objection of the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that in view of the definition of tax arrear under section 87 (m) of Finance Act No. 2 of 1998 (for short the Act ) the amount of duty constituting the subject-matter of show- cause notice issued before 1st April, 1998 comes under the said definition. Under section 88 of the Act, the declaration has to be filed before the designated authority before the stipulated due date. If such declaration relating to tax arrear in accordance with the provisions of section 89 of the Act is filed, the amount payable under the scheme by the declarant shall be fifty per cent of the amount of duty due or payable on the date of making the declaration under Section 88 of the Act, where the tax arrear is payable under the indirect tax enactment. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has not done what he is expected to do under the provisions of the scheme in order to avail of the benefit thereof. On his own calculation of the tax arrear, the petitioner paid only Rs. 9,33,442/ -. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has not done what he is expected to do under the provisions of the scheme in order to avail of the benefit thereof. On his own calculation of the tax arrear, the petitioner paid only Rs. 9,33,442/ -. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitionersubmits that there was an obvious mistake in the determination of duty inasmuch as the cartons already exported were also subjected to duty and if that mistake is rectified, the actual duty payable works out to Rs. 18,66,884. The petitioner having paid fifty per cent thereof must be deemed to have been fulfilled the conditions of the scheme, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We cannot accept this contention in the face of the express provisions of the scheme. The petitioner should either go by the scheme or contest the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not open to the petitioner to request the competent authority to go behind the scheme, enter into an independent assessment or calculation of the duty and receive the duty at fifty per cent after such process of re computation of duty. Such procedure is not contemplated by the scheme. As already observed, either the petitioner should take the benefit of the scheme within the four corners of the scheme or contest the proceedings by having resort to the remedies under the Act. There cannot be a midway. We see no legal infirmity in the impugned order. ( 4 ) IN the memorandum of writ petition,there, is also a challenge to the order dated 15-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner. As it is an appealable order, it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and seek dispensation of pre-deposit of duty. We further direct that the amount paid by the petitioner along with the declaration shall be refunded without avoidable delay. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is dismissed subjectto the above directions.