Conditional exemption fails where power or steam is used in an integral manufacturing process and strict compliance is not proved.

Exemption under Notification No. 28/64 was unavailable because the assessee did not strictly prove compliance with its condition that manufacture be carried on without the aid of power or steam. The adjudicating authority's finding that steam was used to boil soap stock and power was used to transfer the soap stock was not rebutted by the assessee's claim that mixing was manual and heating was by firewood. Since the notification was conditional, the burden lay on the assessee to establish full compliance, and that burden was not discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 28/64 dated 1-3-64 in respect of soap manufacturing, where the department found use of steam for boiling soap stock and power for transferring soap stock.

Analysis: The exemption was available only if no process in or in relation to manufacture was carried on with the aid of power or steam for heating. The assessee failed to rebut the adjudicating authority's findings that steam was used in boiling soap stock and power was used in transferring the soap stock. The assessee's assertion that the raw materials were mixed manually and heating was done by firewood did not displace those findings. The burden was on the assessee to establish strict compliance with the notification conditions, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order denying the exemption was sustained because the assessee did not prove that manufacture was carried on without the aid of power or steam.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is conditional, the assessee must strictly prove compliance with every condition, and use of power or steam in any integral process of manufacture disqualifies the claim.

---