Exemption under capital goods rules fails where the assessee cannot prove the goods fit the notified category or machinery use.

Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and Rule 57Q required the assessee to prove that the impugned goods qualified as capital goods or refractories. The assessee did not claim the items as refractories under Chapter 69 and also failed to identify any specific machinery for which they could be treated as components, spare parts, or accessories. In the absence of proof bringing the goods within the scope of the exemption, the appellate finding rejecting relief was left undisturbed and the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned items were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. as capital goods or refractories under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The burden to establish entitlement to exemption lay on the assessee. The items were not claimed to fall within the category of refractories falling under Chapter 69, and the assessee did not identify any specific machinery to which the items could be treated as components, spare parts, or accessories. In the absence of proof that the goods satisfied the scope of capital goods under Rule 57Q or otherwise fell within the exemption notification, no interference was called for with the appellate finding.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption failed and the rejection of relief was sustained.

---