Exemption burden of proof for imported compressor parts failed where evidence did not establish eligibility under the notification.

Imported compressor parts were held ineligible for the exemption under Notification No. 172/89 because the notification applied only to goods falling within the specified heading and excluded parts of machinery or equipment for use in air-conditioning. The importer's evidence showed only that the parts were used for compressing ammonia, which did not establish that they were outside the scope of compressor parts used in refrigerating equipment. As exemption was claimed by the party asserting it, the burden lay on the claimant to prove eligibility, and the materials produced were insufficient. Exemption was therefore denied and the claim for relief failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported compressor parts were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 172/89, and whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proving eligibility for exemption.

Analysis: The notification granted partial exemption only to goods falling within the specified heading, excluding parts of machinery and equipment for use in air-conditioning. The appellant's material only showed that the parts were used for compressing ammonia, which was insufficient to prove that they were not parts of a compressor of a kind used in refrigerating equipment. The importer's own write-up supported the view that the goods were originally described as refrigeration compressors by the OEM. Since exemption is claimed by the party asserting it, the claimant had to substantiate entitlement by evidence, and no adequate evidence was produced.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 172/89, and the denial of exemption was upheld.

---