Choice of more beneficial exemption notification upheld where later notification was validly opted for from its commencement date.

Where two exemption notifications operate in parallel, an assessee may choose the more beneficial one, and failure to immediately intimate the department does not by itself forfeit that choice. Notification No. 15/2009 was effective from 07.07.2009, so the respondent was entitled to claim its benefit from that date despite earlier availing Notification No. 5/2006-CE. The record showed duty payment and clearances under the later notification, and the Revenue had accepted those clearances. Applying the principle in Share Medical Care, the benefit of Notification No. 15/2009 could not be denied from its commencement date.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could avail the benefit of Notification No. 15/2009 dated 07.07.2009 from its date of commencement despite not intimating the department immediately, when Notification No. 5/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 had earlier been availed.

Analysis: Notification No. 15/2009 came into force on 07.07.2009 and the respondent was entitled to claim its benefit from that date. Mere failure to intimate the department did not extinguish the right to opt for the later notification. The record showed that the respondent paid duty and cleared goods under the later notification, and the Revenue accepted such clearances. Where two notifications are available in parallel, the assessee may choose the one more beneficial to it, and the principle in Share Medical Care supported that choice.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 15/2009 could not be denied from 07.07.2009, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---