https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92667 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. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:26:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92667 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92667