Election between Central Excise exemption notifications barred switching benefits within the same financial year.

Two contemporaneous Central Excise exemption notifications covered the same manufacturer class, but Notification No. 24/91 imposed a bar where the alternative exemption had been availed. The commentary explains that the scheme required an election for the relevant period, so a manufacturer could not first claim Notification No. 1/93 and then switch to Notification No. 24/91 within the same financial year. On the stated facts, the prior availment of Notification No. 1/93 attracted the restriction in Notification No. 24/91, making the later exemption claim unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 24/91-Central Excises after having availed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-Central Excises during the same financial year.

Analysis: Notification No. 24/91 granted exemption subject to specified conditions and expressly excluded its application where the manufacturer availed the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-Central Excises dated 1st March 1986. The Tribunal treated the scheme of two contemporaneous exemption notifications covering the same product or class of manufacturers, with one notification containing a bar against availing the other, as indicating that the assessee had to make an election for the relevant period. On the facts, the assessee had availed Notification No. 1/93 first and then sought to switch to Notification No. 24/91 within the same financial year, which attracted the restriction.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 24/91-Central Excises after having availed Notification No. 1/93-Central Excises in the same financial year, and the rejection of the exemption claim was in law.

---