Overlapping exemption entries allow the assessee to claim the more beneficial notification where goods fit both descriptions.

Non-woven glass wool fabrics were treated as covered by Sr. No. 10 of Notification No. 52/86-C.E. because the notification text did not clearly exclude non-woven goods from the expression "glass fabrics," and the exemption was supported by circular guidance. Where the goods could also fit Sr. No. 11, the entries were read as overlapping rather than mutually exclusive; in that situation, the assessee was entitled to choose the more beneficial exemption. The result was that the disputed goods qualified for exemption treatment and the duty demand was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-woven glass wool fabrics were covered by Sr. No. 10 of Notification No. 52/86-C.E. and entitled to exemption; (ii) Whether, where the goods could fall under both Sr. No. 10 and Sr. No. 11, the assessee could claim the more beneficial exemption.

Issue (i): Whether non-woven glass wool fabrics were covered by Sr. No. 10 of Notification No. 52/86-C.E. and entitled to exemption.

Analysis: The heading and entries did not support a restrictive reading excluding non-woven products from the expression "glass fabrics." The reasoning adopted in the impugned order treated the specific mention of woven fabrics as excluding non-woven fabrics, but no such exclusion followed from the wording of the notification. Support was also found in Circular No. 2/88, which treated chopped strand mats made of glass wool, being non-woven fabrics, as eligible for full exemption under the notification as amended.

Conclusion: The non-woven glass wool fabrics were held to fall within the exempted goods and the benefit under Sr. No. 10 was available.

Issue (ii): Whether, where the goods could fall under both Sr. No. 10 and Sr. No. 11, the assessee could claim the more beneficial exemption.

Analysis: The two entries were read as overlapping in respect of glass fabrics not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish. Since both entries appeared capable of applying to the goods, the situation was treated as one of ambiguity in exemption coverage. In such a case, where two notifications or entries provide different rates of duty, the assessee is entitled to choose the more beneficial one.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of the more favourable entry and could not be denied exemption on the ground of overlap.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded in getting exemption treatment for the disputed goods.

Ratio Decidendi: When exemption entries overlap and the goods satisfy the description in more than one entry, the assessee may opt for the entry granting the greater benefit, and a restrictive interpretation cannot be used to deny exemption absent clear exclusionary language.

---