https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111741 Notification No. 16/97-C.E. did not contain any express prohibition against a manufacturer claiming another exemption notification for a different product. The assessee had earlier availed the 16/97-C.E. exemption and later opted for Notification No. 38/97-C.E. for a new product. In the absence of a specific restriction in the earlier notification, the Department could not deny the later exemption merely because the assessee was already using the former notification. The exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. was therefore available for the new product, and the demand was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:39:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111741 Notification No. 16/97-C.E. did not contain any express prohibition against a manufacturer claiming another exemption notification for a different product. The assessee had earlier availed the 16/97-C.E. exemption and later opted for Notification No. 38/97-C.E. for a new product. In the absence of a specific restriction in the earlier notification, the Department could not deny the later exemption merely because the assessee was already using the former notification. The exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. was therefore available for the new product, and the demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111741