Exemption notification choice may follow the more beneficial option; later restrictive amendment cannot operate retrospectively.

Where two exemption notifications were simultaneously available, the assessee could adopt the more beneficial exemption and the Department could not compel a choice of only one. The later restrictive proviso inserted by Notification No. 22/95-C.E. was treated as a new condition and, absent express contrary language, could operate only prospectively. As the assessee had already availed Notification No. 22/94-C.E. for the relevant period before the amendment and had crossed the clearance limit before the restriction took effect, entitlement to the exemption was upheld and the order denying exemption was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could avail the benefit of Notification No. 22/94-C.E. despite having enjoyed exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. during the same financial year, and whether the restrictive proviso introduced by Notification No. 22/95-C.E. operated retrospectively.

Analysis: The prior Tribunal decisions recognised that where two exemption notifications are simultaneously available, the Department cannot compel the assessee to choose only one, and the assessee may adopt the more beneficial exemption. The restrictive proviso introduced later by Notification No. 22/95-C.E. was a new condition and, in the absence of contrary language, could only operate prospectively. The assessee had already availed Notification No. 22/94-C.E. for the relevant period before the amendment and had crossed the clearance limit before the restriction came into force.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 22/94-C.E., and the later restrictive amendment could not defeat that entitlement. The order denying the exemption was set aside.

---