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 applicant was entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit in a demand involving Cenvat credit on structural items, in view of the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the demand confined to the normal period.
Analysis: The demand related to Cenvat credit availed on items such as M.S. Joists, M.S. Channels, M.S. Angles, M.S. Plate, M.S. Beam and H.R. Plate, and the Tribunal noted that the major portion of the demand was beyond the normal period since the show cause notice was issued after the relevant period. Following the consistent approach adopted in such matters, the Tribunal held that pre-deposit could be waived in respect of the time-barred portion, while the demand relatable to the normal period required partial deposit.
Conclusion: Complete waiver was declined. The applicant was directed to deposit 25% of the demand attributable to the normal period, and upon such deposit the balance dues were waived and recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal.
Final Conclusion: The application for waiver of pre-deposit was allowed only to a limited extent, with partial deposit ordered against the admissible demand portion and interim protection granted for the remainder.