Exemption claim for imported machine failed where no timely Bill of Entry claim or evidence proved notification coverage.

Exemption under Notification No. 23/98-Cus. was denied because the importer did not claim the benefit in the Bill of Entry and produced no catalogue or other evidence to show that the machine was an outsole stitching machine covered by the notification. The appellate claim was therefore unsubstantiated on the record, and concessional duty could not be allowed. A claim for exemption or concessional duty must be timely asserted and supported by evidence proving that the goods fall within the notified description.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported machine was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. as an outsole stitching machine, and whether such benefit could be granted in the absence of a claim in the Bill of Entry and supporting evidence.

Analysis: The claimed exemption was not taken in the Bill of Entry and was raised only before the appellate authority. No documents, catalogue, or other evidence was produced to establish that the machine was an outsole stitching machine covered by the notification. The claim thus remained unsubstantiated on the record.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was not admissible, and the denial of concessional duty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed for want of proof of eligibility to the exemption notification.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption or concessional duty claim must be supported by timely assertion and evidence showing that the imported goods fall within the notified description; unsupported claims cannot be accepted.

---