https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91049 Overlapping exemption notifications were considered for March 1986, with the binding view that Notification No. 175/86 did not operate from 1-3-1986. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was unavailable for 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986, while Notification No. 212/86 applied for the whole of March 1986. The result was partial relief only under Notification No. 212/86, with the claim under Notification No. 175/86 rejected for the disputed period. en-us Mon, 20 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:02:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91049 Overlapping exemption notifications were considered for March 1986, with the binding view that Notification No. 175/86 did not operate from 1-3-1986. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was unavailable for 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986, while Notification No. 212/86 applied for the whole of March 1986. The result was partial relief only under Notification No. 212/86, with the claim under Notification No. 175/86 rejected for the disputed period. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91049