Exemption notification threshold excludes packing charges and power-free refractories where the Revenue fails to rebut supporting evidence.

Special packing charges, forwarding and handling charges, and the value of refractories could not be added to aggregate clearances for denying the benefit of Notification No. 83/83-C.E. The refractories were shown, through specialist certification and the factual absence of machinery or infrastructure for power-assisted manufacture, to have been produced without the aid of power, and the Revenue did not produce contrary evidence. As the special packing charges were also outside the assessable value, they could not be counted for the notification threshold. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the demand and penalty could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the aggregate value of clearances could include special packing charges, forwarding and handling charges, and the value of refractories so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 83/83-C.E.

Analysis: The appellant's case that the refractories were manufactured without the aid of power was supported by a specialist certificate and by the factual stand that no machinery or infrastructure existed in the factory for power-assisted manufacture. The Revenue did not rebut this position with contrary evidence. The special packing charges were also held not to form part of the assessable value and therefore could not be added for computing the clearance limit under the notification.

Conclusion: The denial of the notification benefit was unsustainable and the demand and penalty could not be maintained.

---