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 process of reducing the size of flat-rolled products by cold rolling and annealing amounted to hardening or tempering so as to constitute manufacture under the tariff note.
Analysis: Note 4 to Chapter 72 treats hardening or tempering of flat-rolled products as manufacture. The dispute was technical in nature and turned on whether the appellants' process of size reduction by cold rolling could be equated with hardening or tempering. The appellate record showed reliance by the appellants on technical literature and expert certificates supporting the view that cold working may cause only marginal increase in hardness and that true hardening requires heat treatment. The adjudicating authority did not meaningfully consider this material and instead reproduced the show cause notice more or less verbatim in the findings. The tribunal held that, in such a technical matter, the evidence produced by the appellants ought to have been examined and expert opinion could have been obtained if necessary.
Conclusion: The matter required fresh adjudication after proper consideration of the technical material and expert opinion, if needed, and the impugned decision could not be sustained on the existing record.