1997 (11) TMI 268 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 124/87-Cus. for refractory bricks.
2. Claiming exemption under Notification No. 124/87-Cus. for refractory bricks used in an industrial furnace.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. and Notification No. 68/87-Cus.
4. Requirement to establish entitlement for exemption.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 23-7-1993 by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, where four appeals were dismissed. The specific appeal was against the order-in-appeal in Appeal No. 107/CE/JPR/93, concerning the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 124/87-Cus. for imported refractory bricks due to the lack of proof regarding their special shape, size, or quality as required by the notification.

The consultant representing the appellants argued that the refractory bricks were used in an electric furnace on the factory premises, making them of special size, shape, and quality eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 124/87-Cus. The respondent's representative contended that the appellants failed to demonstrate the special characteristics of the refractory bricks as required by the notification, urging for the dismissal of the appeal.

The tribunal noted that the appellants initially claimed the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. for the imported refractory bricks but later faced a show-cause notice stating that the goods should be assessed under Notification No. 68/87-Cus. as they were ceramic material products. The appellants did not claim the benefit of Notification No. 124/87-Cus. in their responses to the notice. The adjudicating authority ruled that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. due to its exclusion of ceramic material articles but granted the benefit under Notification No. 68/87-Cus.

Regarding the claim under Notification No. 124/87-Cus., the tribunal observed that the appellants provided a communication and a catalogue to support their assertion that the refractory bricks were of special shape and quality for use in an industrial furnace. However, the tribunal found the catalogue insufficient to establish the special characteristics required by the notification, referencing a Supreme Court case emphasizing the burden of proof on the party claiming an exemption. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim for exemption under Notification No. 124/87-Cus., leading to the dismissal of the appeal.