Exemption under freight notification cannot be denied on mere presumption of split consignments without clear supporting evidence.

Exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. could not be denied merely on allegations that freight charges were split to keep each consignment within the prescribed limit. The material showed consignment notes identifying the sender, receiver and quantity of goods, and freight was separately recorded by the transport agent. In the absence of clear evidence of deliberate fragmentation or manipulation, the Revenue's presumption was insufficient to displace the notification benefit. The denial of exemption was therefore not sustainable, and the appellants remained entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether denial of exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. on the basis that freight charges were deliberately split to keep each consignment within the prescribed limit was sustainable.

Analysis: The proceedings rested mainly on allegations and presumptions, without categorical evidence of deliberate split-up or manipulation. The consignments were supported by consignment notes showing sender, receiver and quantity of goods, and freight was separately recorded by the transport agent. On the material placed, there was no clear evidence to establish that the appellant had artificially fragmented consignments to defeat the notification condition. Where exemption is denied on such a basis, the Revenue had to produce clear supporting evidence, which was absent.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was not sustainable and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---