Exemption notification choice principle: an assessee may select the more beneficial notification unless the text clearly bars it.

A 100% export oriented aquaculture unit could choose the more beneficial exemption notification where both were otherwise available. The Tribunal noted that an assessee is not compelled to adopt a particular notification unless the text expressly excludes that option. As Notification No. 1/95-C.E. contained no restriction excluding such units, and Notification No. 10/95-C.E. did not make itself mandatory in preference to it, the unit was entitled to claim Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The demand based on forcing the assessee to apply Notification No. 10/95-C.E. was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a 100% export oriented aquaculture unit could be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. and compelled to take the benefit of Notification No. 10/95-C.E. for the relevant period.

Analysis: The competing notifications were examined in the light of the record and the cited Tribunal decisions. Where more than one exemption notification is available, the assessee retains the option to choose the more beneficial notification and cannot be forced by the Revenue to adopt a particular one unless the notification itself clearly excludes that choice. No restriction was found in Notification No. 1/95-C.E. excluding 100% EOU aquaculture units, and Notification No. 10/95-C.E. also did not contain any condition making it compulsory in preference to Notification No. 1/95-C.E.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E., and the demand based on forcing Notification No. 10/95-C.E. was unsustainable.

---