Conditional exemption notifications: burden of proof may shift on facts, and no referable question of law arose.

In a conditional exemption notification dispute, the Tribunal stated that the burden of proving whether goods were non duty-paid is not fixed and may shift depending on the facts of each case. The question had to be resolved by examining the evidence and circumstances surrounding the exemption claim and the assessee's claim of deemed credit. As the matter turned on factual assessment rather than a general legal principle, no referable question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the case of a conditional exemption notification, the burden of proving that the goods were non duty-paid lay on the department or on the assessee, and whether any referable question of law arose on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof is not static and may shift depending upon the facts of each case. The matter arose from the factual position in the case and depended upon examination of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the conditional exemption and the assessee's claim of deemed credit.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, as the issue turned on facts and the shifting burden of proof had to be determined on the circumstances of the case.

---