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 export obligation under the EPCG scheme was to be computed by applying the exchange rate prevailing on the date of issue of the licence or by using the exchange rate prevailing on the date of export, and whether the subsequent policy circular could be applied to the appellant's completed exports.
Analysis: The licence and the amended endorsement stated the export obligation in US dollars, not in rupee terms. The scheme and the Handbook of Procedure required the export obligation to be discharged in freely convertible currency. The exchange rate prevailing on the date of issue of the licence was relevant only for converting the CIF value into US dollars when the obligation was fixed; it did not permit reworking the obligation at a later export-date rate. The later policy circular could not be applied retrospectively to an obligation already fixed and largely performed, and the object of the scheme was earning foreign exchange, not giving benefit of rupee depreciation to the exporter. The appellant's method of recomputing the obligation on the date of export was therefore inconsistent with the scheme.
Conclusion: The exchange rate on the date of issue of the licence governed the fixation of export obligation, the appellant could not claim revaluation on the date of export, and the challenge failed.