Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether loose cigarettes consumed within the factory for empirical testing were excisable and liable to central excise duty; (ii) whether the personal penalties imposed on the appellant were sustainable.
Issue (i): whether loose cigarettes consumed within the factory for empirical testing were excisable and liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same issue and held that the taxable event is manufacture or production, while the timing of removal is only a matter of collection for administrative convenience. Rule 93 was treated as regulating delivery and collection, not as excluding loose cigarettes from excisability. Captive consumption of cigarettes within the factory therefore did not take them outside the duty net, and the demand was sustainable.
Conclusion: The duty demand on the loose cigarettes was upheld against the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the personal penalties imposed on the appellant were sustainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal noted that in the appellant's earlier matter on the same controversy, the personal penalty had been set aside. On the facts of the present case, it found no justification to sustain the personal penalties imposed under the rules.
Conclusion: The personal penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The duty liability was confirmed, but the personal penalties were deleted, resulting in only a partial success for the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where manufacture is complete, duty remains chargeable on captively consumed excisable goods, and packing or delivery requirements governing removal do not exclude such goods from excisability; penalty may still be waived on the facts of the case.