ISLAND CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTION
Decisions
v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Appeal No. AP-91-258
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ottawa, Friday, February 26, 1993
Appeal No. AP-91-258
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on December 9, 1992, under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Minister of National Revenue dated January 24, 1992, with respect to a notice of objection served under section 81.17 of the Excise Tax Act.
BETWEEN
ISLAND CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTION Appellant
AND
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent
The appeal is dismissed.
Robert C. Coates, Q.C. ______ Robert C. Coates, Q.C. Member
Arthur B. Trudeau ______ Arthur B. Trudeau Member
Michel P. Granger ______ Michel P. Granger Secretary
HELD : The appeal is dismissed.
Tribunal Members: Desmond Hallissey, Presiding Member Robert C. Coates, Q.C., Member Arthur B. Trudeau, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Hugh J. Cheetham
Clerk of the Tribunal: Nicole Pelletier
Appearance: Linda J. Wall, for the respondent
This is an appeal under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act [1] of a determination of the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister). On February 10, 1991, the appellant applied for a federal sales tax inventory rebate (the rebate) in the amount of $447.26 with respect to its tax-paid inventory held on January 1, 1991. On May 21, 1991, the Minister issued a notice of determination disallowing the application on the basis that the raw materials did not qualify for the rebate because they were not in "inventory" and that the finished goods did not qualify for the rebate because they were not "tax-paid goods." By notice of objection dated June 7, 1991, the appellant objected to the determination. On January 24, 1992, the Minister issued a notice of decision disallowing the objection and confirming the determination. Island Chemicals Distribution appealed the determination to the Tribunal.
A hearing in this matter was scheduled for December 9, 1992. The appellant did not appear at the hearing and, thus, the written documents previously filed with the Tribunal were the only evidence put before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the view that, in this case, those materials are not sufficient to clearly establish that the goods in issue fall within the rebate provisions under which the appellant put forward its claim and that all of the conditions of those provisions have been met. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[ Table of Contents]
1. R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.
Initial publication: July 3, 1997