Exemption choice under competing notifications cannot be restricted when the assessee remains eligible for the more beneficial relief.

Where exemption notifications give an assessee a choice between two benefits, the Department cannot compel selection of the less favourable notification merely because one notification was later amended. The text states that the assessee remained eligible under both Notification No. 138/86-C.E. and Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and that no legal basis existed to force use of the former. The appellate authority was therefore correct in extending the more beneficial exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and the Revenue's objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could be compelled to avail exemption under Notification No. 138/86-C.E. when it was eligible to claim exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Analysis: The relevant notifications permitted the assessee to claim benefit under either notification. The later amendment to Notification No. 138/86-C.E. did not create a legal basis to force the assessee to opt for that notification when the assessee remained eligible for the other exemption. Since the assessee was entitled to choose the more beneficial exemption and there was no infirmity in the appellate authority extending the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the Revenue's objection failed.

Conclusion: The assessee could not be compelled to avail Notification No. 138/86-C.E.; the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was rightly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting the assessee exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption notifications confer an option to avail benefit under either of two notifications, an assessee eligible for both cannot be compelled by the Department to choose one notification merely because of an amended restriction in the other.

---