https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216684 Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and Rule 57Q required the assessee to prove that the impugned goods qualified as capital goods or refractories. The assessee did not claim the items as refractories under Chapter 69 and also failed to identify any specific machinery for which they could be treated as components, spare parts, or accessories. In the absence of proof bringing the goods within the scope of the exemption, the appellate finding rejecting relief was left undisturbed and the exemption claim failed. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216684 Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and Rule 57Q required the assessee to prove that the impugned goods qualified as capital goods or refractories. The assessee did not claim the items as refractories under Chapter 69 and also failed to identify any specific machinery for which they could be treated as components, spare parts, or accessories. In the absence of proof bringing the goods within the scope of the exemption, the appellate finding rejecting relief was left undisturbed and the exemption claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216684