Exemption notification overlap permitted where no express bar exists; later exemption available for a new product despite earlier use

Notification No. 16/97-C.E. did not contain any express prohibition against a manufacturer claiming another exemption notification for a different product. The assessee had earlier availed the 16/97-C.E. exemption and later opted for Notification No. 38/97-C.E. for a new product. In the absence of a specific restriction in the earlier notification, the Department could not deny the later exemption merely because the assessee was already using the former notification. The exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. was therefore available for the new product, and the demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E. dated 27-6-1997 for its new product while also availing the benefit of Notification No. 16/97-C.E. dated 1-4-1997 for other excisable goods.

Analysis: The entitlement turned on whether Notification No. 16/97-C.E. contained any prohibition against a manufacturer availing another notification for a different product. The record showed that the assessee had earlier been availing Notification No. 16/97-C.E. and later opted for Notification No. 38/97-C.E. in respect of its new product. The controlling consideration was the absence of any express bar in Notification No. 16/97-C.E. preventing recourse to another exemption notification. In the absence of such a restriction, the Department could not deny the benefit of the later notification merely because the assessee was already taking advantage of the earlier one.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E. in respect of the new product, and the demand was not sustainable.

---