Exemption notification burden of proof: Revenue's failure to rebut conditions left processed tar eligible for relief.

Processed pitch oil mixture or processed tar was held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 121/62-C.E. because the Revenue failed to produce evidence, including any test report, to show non-fulfilment of the notification's conditions. The dispute was confined to exemption eligibility, and prior Tribunal decisions on the same issue supported the assessee. As those earlier orders were not shown to have been stayed by the Supreme Court, and the Revenue did not displace the appellate authority's reliance on the absence of rebuttal evidence and trade notices, the exemption was allowed and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the processed pitch oil mixture or processed tar was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 121/62-C.E. dated 13-6-62.

Analysis: The product was accepted by both sides as falling under the relevant tariff heading, and the dispute was confined to availability of the exemption. The appellate authority had found that the Revenue had not produced any evidence, including a test report, to show that the product failed to satisfy the conditions of the notification. The grounds of appeal also acknowledged that earlier Tribunal decisions on an identical issue were in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue was unable to show that those orders had been stayed by the Supreme Court. The appellate authority's reliance on the absence of rebuttal evidence and on trade notices was not displaced by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue fails to adduce evidence to disprove fulfilment of the conditions of an exemption notification, and earlier binding or persuasive decisions on the same issue support the assessee, exemption cannot be denied merely on assertion.

---