Strict proof for conditional exemption under a notification is required; absence of one supply source does not establish compliance.

Conditional exemption under Notification No. 131/81-C.E. required the claimant to strictly prove that the goods were manufactured from old and used articles of platinum and rhodium. The record did not support that requirement: a Chartered Accountant's certificate and the absence of purchases from MMTC were insufficient to establish compliance, because other sources of metal remained possible. The appellate finding that the notification condition was satisfied was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was not entitled to concessional duty or refund under the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the concessional duty and refund under Notification No. 131/81-C.E. on the basis that the goods were manufactured out of old and used articles of platinum and rhodium.

Analysis: The notification granted concessional duty to articles manufactured out of specified metals when remade from old used articles. The burden lay on the claimant to establish, by specific evidence, that the goods satisfied that condition. The only material relied upon was a Chartered Accountant's certificate and the circumstance that no purchase from MMTC was shown during the relevant period. That circumstance, by itself, did not prove that the goods were made from old and used articles, since other sources of metal were also possible. The appellate authority's finding that the condition was satisfied was therefore unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the notification benefit; the finding in its favour was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant to exemption under a conditional notification must strictly prove fulfilment of the prescribed condition by specific evidence, and the absence of one source of supply does not by itself establish compliance.

---