Exemption claims require strict proof of eligibility; alleged benefits granted to others do not create a right to the same relief.

Exemption under Notifications 35/90, 181/90 and 36/90 applied only to coke meeting the prescribed phosphorous content, and the claimant had to strictly prove that the imported product fell within that description. The evidence did not satisfactorily establish that the goods were coke rather than semi coke, so the exemption claim failed. An alleged or unverified grant of exemption to other importers did not create any enforceable entitlement for the claimant, and an erroneous concession in another case could not control the present claim. The article states that exemption must be strictly proved and cannot be claimed on the basis of another importer's treatment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were established to be coke, and not semi coke, so as to qualify for exemption under Notifications 35/90, 181/90 and 36/90; (ii) Whether alleged grant of exemption to other importers entitled the appellant to the same benefit.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were established to be coke, and not semi coke, so as to qualify for exemption under Notifications 35/90, 181/90 and 36/90.

Analysis: The exemption was confined to coke containing not more than the prescribed phosphorous content. The materials placed before the Tribunal showed a distinction between coke and semi coke, and the appellant was required to prove that the imported product fell within the exempted description. In an exemption claim, the burden lies on the claimant to establish eligibility. The evidence produced did not satisfactorily discharge that burden, and the classification for tariff purposes did not by itself determine entitlement to exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove that the imported goods were coke and was not entitled to the exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged grant of exemption to other importers entitled the appellant to the same benefit.

Analysis: A wrong or unverified grant of exemption in other cases does not create an enforceable right in favour of another importer. The record relating to the cited instances was incomplete, and even if exemption had been wrongly granted elsewhere, that could not control the present claim.

Conclusion: The appellant could not derive any benefit from the alleged exemptions granted to other importers.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant for exemption must strictly establish entitlement to the notification, and an erroneous concession or exemption granted in another case does not confer a corresponding right.

---