Optional duty benefits under a notification cannot be forced into the less favourable exemption route; assessee may choose concessional entry.

Where a notification provides alternative duty treatments for the same goods, the Department cannot compel an assessee to adopt the less favourable nil-rate exemption if the assessee chooses the concessional duty entry. The notification in question offered either total exemption subject to conditions or duty at 15% without those conditions, and the assessee was entitled to elect the option that best suited it. On opting for the concessional entry under Notification No. 53/88, the assessee could claim the corresponding legal benefits available under that route, and the Department could not insist on the nil-rate exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could opt for the concessional duty entry under Notification No. 53/88 instead of being compelled to take the nil-rate exemption entry for the same goods.

Analysis: The notification provided two alternative treatments for the goods: one granting total exemption subject to specified conditions, and another prescribing duty at 15% without those conditions. Where a statute or notification offers alternative benefits, the Department cannot force the assessee to adopt the less favourable option. The assessee is entitled to choose the option that best suits it, and upon opting to pay duty under the concessional entry, the corresponding benefits remain available according to law.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to choose the concessional entry under Notification No. 53/88, and the Department could not insist on the nil-rate exemption.

---