https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114461 Exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was treated as conditional, and the claimant had to prove strict compliance with its terms. On the facts discussed, the alleged purchase of reprocessed polypropylene granules was not established, the source of raw material for the exempt goods was unexplained, and the technical manager admitted use of duty-credit inputs in manufacture; the notification benefit was therefore wrongly availed. The duty demand was upheld, the penalty under Section 11AC was sustained, and the separate penalty under Rule 209A was reduced. en-us Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114461 Exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was treated as conditional, and the claimant had to prove strict compliance with its terms. On the facts discussed, the alleged purchase of reprocessed polypropylene granules was not established, the source of raw material for the exempt goods was unexplained, and the technical manager admitted use of duty-credit inputs in manufacture; the notification benefit was therefore wrongly availed. The duty demand was upheld, the penalty under Section 11AC was sustained, and the separate penalty under Rule 209A was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114461