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 benefit under Notification No. 110/95-Cus could be denied on the ground that exports were made from another factory and not from the factory where the imported capital goods were installed, notwithstanding the certificate issued by the licensing authority showing fulfilment of export obligation.
Analysis: The notification required the importer to produce a certificate from the licensing authority indicating the extent of export obligation fulfilled. The appellant produced a certificate from the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade stating that the entire export obligation under the EPCG licence had been met and advising release of the bank guarantee or LUT. In view of that certification, the place from which the exports were made did not justify denial of the exemption. The Revenue could not disregard the licensing authority's certificate unless it obtained a specific clarification that such exports were excluded for EPCG purposes.
Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied, and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was held entitled to the consequential relief flowing from acceptance of fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable exemption notification makes fulfilment of export obligation dependent on certification by the licensing authority, a valid certificate issued by that authority is determinative unless specifically displaced by a contrary clarification from the same authority.