https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108641 A conditional exemption under Sl. No. 39 of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. could not be insisted upon where its prescribed conditions were not satisfied, and the goods were then liable to assessment under the dutiable entry in Sl. No. 40. The two entries were not identically worded or similarly situated, so a manufacturer could lawfully choose to pay duty under Sl. No. 40 and take Modvat credit instead of claiming the nil-rate exemption under Sl. No. 39. The benefit under Sl. No. 40 could not be denied merely because the goods broadly fell within the description of Sl. No. 39. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:53:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108641 A conditional exemption under Sl. No. 39 of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. could not be insisted upon where its prescribed conditions were not satisfied, and the goods were then liable to assessment under the dutiable entry in Sl. No. 40. The two entries were not identically worded or similarly situated, so a manufacturer could lawfully choose to pay duty under Sl. No. 40 and take Modvat credit instead of claiming the nil-rate exemption under Sl. No. 39. The benefit under Sl. No. 40 could not be denied merely because the goods broadly fell within the description of Sl. No. 39. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108641