Concurrent exemption notifications allow taxpayers to choose the more beneficial option and avoid an unsustainable demand.

Where two exemption notifications applied to the same goods, the assessee could elect the notification granting the greater benefit, including where the chosen notification did not impose a restriction on Cenvat credit. The administration could not compel the assessee to remain under the less beneficial exemption merely because it was otherwise available. On that basis, the demand was held unsustainable and the assessee's appeal succeeded because the more favourable exemption notification was lawfully chosen.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when two exemption notifications were simultaneously available for the same goods, the assessee could choose the more beneficial notification and avail Cenvat credit accordingly.

Analysis: The notifications in question granted exemption on ceramic glazed tiles under different conditions. The dispute turned on whether the assessee was bound to remain under the notification carrying the condition against Cenvat credit, or could shift to the alternative notification that did not contain such a restriction once the effective duty position became more favourable. The settled rule applied was that, where two exemption notifications are available for the same product, the assessee is entitled to select the notification that gives greater relief, and the administration cannot compel adoption of the less beneficial exemption merely because it is otherwise applicable.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to opt for the more beneficial exemption notification and the demand was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the assessee could lawfully choose the exemption notification that conferred the greater benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two exemption notifications are concurrently applicable, the assessee may elect the more beneficial exemption, and a general preference for one notification cannot defeat that choice.

---