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, on a prima facie view, the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit in a dispute concerning duty liability on indigenous capital goods cleared on debonding from a 100% EOU and migration to the zero duty EPCG scheme.
Analysis: The unit had procured capital goods duty-free as a 100% EOU and had achieved positive NFE. The relevant excise exemption notification, as amended, permitted debonding under the EPCG route if the positive NFE condition was satisfied, but it did not specify the rate of duty payable on indigenously procured capital goods at the time of debonding. The customs side contained a concessional notification for EPCG imports, but no corresponding Central Excise exemption notification under Section 5A(1) was available for such indigenous capital goods. In that background, the Tribunal formed a prima facie view that duty at the prevailing rate on the depreciated value would be payable and that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver.
Conclusion: The appellant was directed to make full pre-deposit of the duty demand, with waiver of pre-deposit of interest upon compliance, and the request for complete stay was rejected.