MANTIA HOLDINGS INC.
Decisions
v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Appeal No. AP-92-094
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ottawa, Monday, January 10, 1994
Appeal No. AP-92-094
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on June 9, 1993, 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 June 2, 1992, with respect to a notice of objection served under section 81.17 of the Excise Tax Act.
BETWEEN
MANTIA HOLDINGS INC. Appellant
AND
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent
The appeal is dismissed.
Kathleen E. Macmillan ______ Kathleen E. Macmillan Member
Michèle Blouin ______ Michèle Blouin Member
Michel P. Granger ______ Michel P. Granger Secretary
The issues in this appeal are whether the appellant has established that the goods in issue (i) were held by it in inventory on January 1, 1991, (ii) should be valued as claimed by the appellant and (iii) qualified for a federal sales tax inventory rebate equal to 8.1 percent of their value.
HELD: The appeal is dismissed. Mere allegations by the appellant do not suffice to discharge it from the burden of proving that it is entitled, under section 120 of the Excise Tax Act, to a federal sales tax inventory rebate.
Tribunal Members: Lise Bergeron, Presiding Member Kathleen E. Macmillan, Member Michèle Blouin, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Robert Desjardins
Clerk of the Tribunal: Janet Rumball
Appearance: Frederick B. Woyiwada, for the respondent
This is an appeal under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act [1] (the Act) of a decision of the Minister of National Revenue dated June 2, 1992. This decision confirmed a determination disallowing the appellant's application for a federal sales tax (FST) inventory rebate of $17,912.34 made under section 120 [2] of the Act.
The issues in this appeal are whether the appellant has established that the goods in issue (i) were held by it in inventory on January 1, 1991, (ii) should be valued as claimed by the appellant and (iii) qualified for an FST inventory rebate equal to 8.1 percent of their value.
The appellant has the burden of proving that it is entitled, under section 120 of the Act, to the sought FST inventory rebate. Mere allegations by the appellant do not suffice to discharge it of such burden. Having carefully reviewed the appellant's brief (nothing in the documentary evidence on file could allow the Tribunal to find in favour of the appellant) and duly considered that the appellant did not provide any additional evidence, as it chose not to appear at the hearing, the Tribunal decided during that hearing to allow the motion by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the appeal.
In light of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed.
[ Table of Contents]
1. R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.
2. S.C. 1990, c. 45, s. 12.
Initial publication: June 17, 1997