Exemption notification option rules: rectifying mistaken dual availment and paying differential duty does not amount to an impermissible switch.

An assessee that initially avails two exemption notifications simultaneously, and on being told the dual availment is not permissible pays the differential duty and continues under the remaining notification, is not treated as having made an impermissible switch of option during the financial year. The factual sequence matters: rectification of an erroneous dual claim and continued compliance under one eligible exemption is distinct from a prohibited change of exemption choice. On that basis, the objection based on change of option failed and the benefit under the claimed notification remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, after having availed the benefit of one exemption notification, could validly continue under the other notification and whether this amounted to an impermissible switching over during the financial year.

Analysis: The assessee had initially availed the benefits of both notifications but, on being informed that simultaneous availment was not permissible, paid the differential duty attributable to the mistaken availment and continued under the other notification. On these facts, the arrangement did not amount to a prohibited switching over from one notification to another. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the factual sequence and the effect of the assessee's revised declaration and duty payment.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit claimed and the objection based on change of option during the financial year failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee rectifies an erroneous simultaneous availment by paying the differential duty and continues under the remaining applicable exemption, the conduct does not amount to an impermissible switch of option within the financial year.

---