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 demand of central excise duty raised against the job worker was barred by limitation and whether the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts.
Analysis: The goods were received and returned under Annexure-II challans in the framework of Rule 57F(2) and Notification No. 214/86-CE. The suppliers had filed intimations and undertakings before the jurisdictional authorities, the classification lists disclosed the job-work arrangement, and the challans were pre-authenticated by the Department. On these facts, the entire arrangement was within the knowledge of the excise authorities and there was no material to show suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement by the assessee. Since the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, the extended limitation could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The demand was time-barred, the extended period was not invocable, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The order dropping the duty demand was sustained and the Revenue's appeal stood rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are disclosed to the Department and the job-work arrangement is carried out under the prescribed excise procedure, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement.