Conditional duty exemption requires conclusive documentary proof of every notification requirement; incomplete evidence cannot sustain the concession.

Exemption under a conditional notification was available only if the manufacturer declared the aluminium as electrical conductor grade and conclusively proved that the goods were required to be supplied and distributed under the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970. The documentary record was found incomplete: it mainly showed allocation of raw material and did not establish compliance for the full quantity covered by the returns. On that basis, the concessional duty claim could not be sustained on the material then available, and the exemption order was set aside with the matter remitted for fresh decision after further evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 42/75 dated 01-03-1975; (ii) whether the documentary material relied upon was sufficient to show that the goods were required by the Central Government to be supplied and distributed in accordance with the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 42/75 dated 01-03-1975.

Analysis: The exemption applied only where aluminium was declared by the manufacturer to be electrical conductor grade and was required by the Central Government to be supplied and distributed under the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970. The materials on record showed that the goods were treated as EC grade aluminium products, but entitlement to the concession depended on proof that the statutory conditions of the notification were fully satisfied.

Conclusion: The respondents had not conclusively established entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 42/75 on the material then before the authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the documentary material relied upon was sufficient to show that the goods were required by the Central Government to be supplied and distributed in accordance with the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970.

Analysis: The documents produced mainly evidenced allocation of raw material, and only some referred to supply and distribution. They did not cover the entire quantity of aluminium products involved in the RT 12 returns. The proper test was whether the respondents could conclusively prove, by relevant allotment orders, invoices and connected records, that the manufactured products were supplied and distributed under the Control Order as required by the notification.

Conclusion: The evidence was held insufficient for a final finding in favour of the respondents, and the matter required reconsideration on fuller documentary proof.

Final Conclusion: The order granting exemption was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision after allowing the respondents to produce further evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption under a conditional notification depends on compliance with a control order, the claimant must conclusively prove satisfaction of each statutory condition by adequate documentary evidence; partial or incomplete proof is insufficient to sustain the concession.

---