Exemption notification entries may be chosen separately: unconditioned relief remains available even if another entry's conditions are unmet.

Where a notification contains both a conditional exemption entry and a separate unconditioned entry, the assessee may elect the entry applicable to its case. Failure to satisfy the conditions attached to the fully exempted entry does not by itself bar reliance on the independent unconditioned entry. Applying this principle to Notification No. 53/88-C.E., Sl. No. 40 was treated as available notwithstanding the conditional nature of Sl. No. 39, and the benefit under Sl. No. 40 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to claim exemption under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. dated 1-3-1988 notwithstanding the conditional nature of Sl. No. 39.

Analysis: Sl. No. 39 granted a conditional exemption, while Sl. No. 40 was an independent entry without the same conditions. The applicable principle was that a manufacturer may choose the benefit of the entry under a notification that suits its case, and if the conditions for the fully exempted entry are not satisfied, duty may be paid under the alternate entry. On that basis, the benefit under Sl. No. 40 was held to be available.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to avail the benefit of Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. dated 1-3-1988; the appeal was against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification contains a conditional exempting entry and a separate unconditioned entry, the assessee may elect the applicable entry, and the benefit of the unconditioned entry cannot be denied merely because the conditions of the other entry are not fulfilled.

---