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 prestressed sleeper slabs manufactured near one bridge and supplied for use in other bridges forming part of the same railway line were covered by the site-based exemption under Notification No. 6/2000 dated 1-3-2000, and whether supply to other contractors denied the exemption.
Analysis: The exemption applied where goods were manufactured at the site of construction for use in the construction work at that site. The fact that the slabs were manufactured near one bridge and used in other bridges along the same railway line did not take the goods outside the exemption. The notification also did not impose any restriction that the goods must be supplied only to the contractor who manufactured them. Once the goods were manufactured at the site for use in the construction work, the condition of the notification stood satisfied.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption and the demand, penalty, and confiscation order could not survive.