https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110277 Entitlement to Notification No. 37/86-C.E. depended on proving that the cement had been removed from the factory on or before 31-3-1990, because the applicable excise treatment under Rule 9A turned on the date of removal. The claimant relied on loading and internal or railway-related records, but did not produce reliable evidence from the railway department, and the railway receipts on record were issued after 31-3-1990. As exemption was claimed, the burden lay on the claimant to strictly establish eligibility; where the evidence did not clearly prove removal before the cut-off date, the benefit could not be allowed. The exemption was denied, the duty demand was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:49:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110277 Entitlement to Notification No. 37/86-C.E. depended on proving that the cement had been removed from the factory on or before 31-3-1990, because the applicable excise treatment under Rule 9A turned on the date of removal. The claimant relied on loading and internal or railway-related records, but did not produce reliable evidence from the railway department, and the railway receipts on record were issued after 31-3-1990. As exemption was claimed, the burden lay on the claimant to strictly establish eligibility; where the evidence did not clearly prove removal before the cut-off date, the benefit could not be allowed. The exemption was denied, the duty demand was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110277