Strict proof for exemption claims bars new appellate claims based on different facts and notifications.

Exemption under Notification No. 162/86 depended on proof that the imported goods were intended for use with motors of the specified rating; failure to produce documentary evidence of the required end-use meant the claimant did not discharge the burden of establishing eligibility. An alternate claim under Notification No. 155/86 could not be raised for the first time at the appellate stage because it rested on a different notification and a new factual foundation, namely use in the manufacture of goods under the relevant tariff heading. The commentary states that exemption claims must be strictly proved and that a fresh claim on different facts cannot be introduced later by merely correcting the notification citation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 162/86 dated 01-03-1986 without producing evidence that the imported goods were for use with motors of the specified rating; (ii) Whether an alternate claim under Notification No. 155/86 dated 01-03-1986 could be entertained for the first time at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 162/86 dated 01-03-1986 without producing evidence that the imported goods were for use with motors of the specified rating.

Analysis: The claim for exemption depended on proof that the goods satisfied the conditions of the notification. The appellants were unable to produce documentary evidence in support of the claimed end-use, and the adjudicating authority had already found that the printed literature did not establish the required nexus with motors of the prescribed capacity. Since exemption is a matter of claim and must be established by the claimant, failure to discharge that burden was fatal.

Conclusion: The claim under Notification No. 162/86 was rightly rejected and the impugned order was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an alternate claim under Notification No. 155/86 dated 01-03-1986 could be entertained for the first time at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The alternate claim rested on a different notification and required proof of materially different facts, namely whether the goods were used in the manufacture of goods falling under the relevant tariff heading. That claim had never been made before the original authority and introduced a new factual foundation rather than merely correcting a wrong citation. A fresh claim on different grounds, raised after the relevant time, could not be entertained and was barred as a new claim.

Conclusion: The alternate claim under Notification No. 155/86 was not maintainable at that stage and was rejected, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in entirety because the exemption claim under the first notification was unproved and the alternative exemption claim was a fresh, time-barred claim on different facts.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption claim must be strictly proved by the claimant, and a new claim based on different facts and a different notification cannot be introduced for the first time after the limitation period merely by correcting the citation.

---