Choice of exemption notification: assessee may claim the more beneficial unconditional exemption for the relevant period.

Where two exemption notifications are available for the same period, the assessee may opt for the notification granting greater relief, especially where the earlier notification provides an unconditional exemption that remains in force for the relevant period. On that basis, the later notification could not be used to deny the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for March 2003. The duty demand therefore could not be sustained, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the relevant period, the appellants were entitled to claim exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. in preference to Notification No. 7/2003-C.E. when both notifications were said to be applicable.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. was unconditional and continued for the extended period up to 31-3-2003. In such a situation, the appellants were entitled to choose the notification that afforded them greater relief. The later notification could not be applied to deny the benefit of the earlier unconditional exemption. The principle that, where two exemption notifications are available, the assessee may opt for the one granting greater relief supported this view.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for March 2003.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand could not be sustained and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two exemption notifications are available, an assessee may choose the one granting the greater benefit, particularly when the chosen notification grants an unconditional exemption for the relevant period.

---