Customs exemption claims failed for lack of classification evidence and because a new ground was raised too late in remand proceedings.

Polyester metallised film was discussed for exemption from additional customs duty only if it qualified as rigid plastic boards, sheetings, sheets or film other than PVC-based goods, but the claim failed because no supporting test report or factual material was produced to establish the required classification. A separate exemption ground under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. was also unavailable because it was first raised in de novo proceedings, beyond the scope of the original refund claim and remand, and was treated as a fresh, time-barred ground. Both exemption claims were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether polyester metallised film was entitled to exemption from additional customs duty under Notification No. 71/71-C.E. dated 29-5-1971; and (ii) whether the claim for exemption under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. could be entertained when it was raised only at the de novo stage.

Issue (i): whether polyester metallised film was entitled to exemption from additional customs duty under Notification No. 71/71-C.E. dated 29-5-1971.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification depended on the goods being rigid plastic boards, sheetings, sheets or film other than those manufactured from polyvinyl chloride. No claim for this exemption had been made at the time of import, and no test report or other factual material was produced to establish whether the goods were rigid or flexible. In the absence of such supporting evidence, the classification necessary for the exemption could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The claim under Notification No. 71/71-C.E. dated 29-5-1971 was not established and the rejection of exemption was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the claim for exemption under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. could be entertained when it was raised only at the de novo stage.

Analysis: The original refund claim was confined to the claim under Notification No. 71/71-C.E. The remand was limited to examining the certificate regarding non-availment of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. The claim under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. was introduced only in the de novo proceedings and was therefore outside the scope of the original claim and the remand. It was accordingly treated as a fresh and time-barred ground.

Conclusion: The claim under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. was barred and was rightly rejected against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both the exemption claim and the additional ground raised at the de novo stage, leaving the orders of the lower authorities undisturbed.

---