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 peripheral processes such as deflashing, checking with vernier, inspection of goods and checking hardness constitute manufacture under Rule 57F(2)/Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on the Larger Bench decision in M. Tex & Another v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.
Issue (i): Whether peripheral processes such as deflashing, checking with vernier, inspection of goods and checking hardness constitute manufacture under Rule 57F(2)/Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The questions were stated to be covered by the decision in Commissioner of C. Ex., Pondicherry v. Sunco Rubbers Ltd., where identical substantial questions of law had already been answered against the Revenue.
Conclusion: The issue is answered against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on the Larger Bench decision in M. Tex & Another v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.
Analysis: The appeal was disposed of by following the earlier decision in Sunco Rubbers Ltd., which governed the controversy raised in the appeal.
Conclusion: The issue is answered against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The substantial questions of law were resolved against the appellant Revenue and the appeal was dismissed.