Independent examination of exemption claims required before denial of customs benefit under overlapping notification entries.

Imported prepared unrecorded media fell within the relevant tariff entry, and the claim for exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. had to be examined on its own merits. The lower authority erred by relying on a different serial number in the notification and on alleged non-fulfilment of conditions for another exemption, without first determining the appellant's substantive eligibility for the claimed benefit. Where more than one exemption or basis of relief is available, each claim must be considered independently and the benefit granted if the conditions are satisfied. On that approach, the denial of exemption was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to the claimed benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was sustainable, and whether the importer was entitled to the benefit on merits.

Analysis: The imported goods were prepared unrecorded media covered by the relevant tariff entry, and the lower appellate authority had not properly examined the claim under Sl. No. 15 of the notification. The authority instead proceeded on Sl. No. 39 and on the alleged non-fulfilment of conditions for another exemption notification, without first deciding the appellant's substantive eligibility for the claimed benefit. Where a claimant is entitled to more than one exemption or more than one basis of relief, the authorities are required to consider each claim independently and grant the benefit if the conditions are satisfied.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit claimed.

---