Strict proof for conditional excise exemption fails where sourcing conditions are not established and factual findings remain unshaken.

Conditional excise exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-CE was available only on strict proof of compliance with the prescribed purchase and sourcing requirements. The record showed that tea leaves were procured through middlemen under written agreements, and there was no reliable evidence that the notification conditions were satisfied. Inconsistencies between receipts, delivery challans and signatures supported the adverse factual findings, and later materials not produced before the Tribunal could not displace them. The appellant therefore failed to establish entitlement to the exemption, and the refusal of the benefit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 despite not establishing compliance with the prescribed sourcing conditions.

Analysis: The claimed exemption was conditional and required the assessee to satisfy the notification's purchase and sourcing requirements. The materials before the Tribunal showed that the appellant had procured tea leaves through middlemen under written agreements, and there was no reliable proof that the conditions in the notification were fulfilled. The factual findings also recorded inconsistency between receipts, delivery challans, and signatures, and no sufficient basis was shown to disturb those findings. The additional materials relied on at the appellate stage had not been produced before the Tribunal and could not displace the impugned factual conclusions.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish entitlement to the exemption, and the refusal of the benefit under the notification was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not disclose any ground warranting admission, and the impugned order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under a conditional notification can be claimed only on strict proof of fulfillment of its prescribed conditions, and unproved factual assertions cannot overturn concurrent factual findings denying the benefit.

---