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 cement cleared in 50 kg bags to institutional and industrial consumers was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. under Sl. No. 1B or 1C, having regard to the Explanation and the Second Proviso to Sl. No. 1C.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the construction of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., particularly the relationship between Sl. No. 1B, Sl. No. 1C, and the Explanation defining a mini cement plant. The Tribunal noted that an earlier decision had already considered the same issue and had held that the goods would be covered under Sl. No. 1B or 1C by virtue of the Second Proviso to the Explanation to Sl. No. 1C. That view had also been supported by the Board's clarification dated 12-6-08 and followed in a later matter involving similar facts.
Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was admissible to the assessee, and the demand could not be sustained.