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: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 dated 20-5-88 on the footing that the railway scrap used as inputs was duty paid, and whether the Revenue had discharged the burden of proving that the inputs were non-duty paid.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the character of the railway scrap purchased and used in the manufacture of rods and bars. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's view that old and used railway material used as inputs could fall within the description covered by the exemption notification, and the Allahabad High Court's view that duty-paid nature of railway scrap is to be presumed unless the Revenue proves otherwise. In the present case, the Revenue had not established that the scrap purchased from the railways was non-duty paid, while the impugned order had proceeded on an assumption to that effect. That approach was inconsistent with the governing legal position.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue had failed to disprove the duty-paid character of the inputs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption depends on inputs being duty paid, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove that railway scrap or similar purchased inputs are non-duty paid before denying the benefit of the notification.