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 could be sustained when inputs on which Cenvat credit had been taken were removed as such to a sister concern and the value for reversal was to be determined by the invoice value or by recourse to Rule 8 of the valuation rules.
Analysis: The binding circular clarified that where inputs or capital goods, on which credit had been taken, are removed as such to a sister unit or another factory without sale, the value is not to be determined by applying Rule 8 in the abstract; if no transaction value is available from sales to independent buyers, the residuary valuation route is to be applied and it is reasonable to adopt the value shown in the invoice on the basis of which Cenvat credit was originally taken. This view was consistent with the Tribunal's earlier decisions relied upon in the order and the later clarification that the amount payable on removal as such is the credit availed in respect of the goods.
Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the confirmed demand was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For inputs removed as such after availing Cenvat credit, where no sale transaction exists to furnish transaction value, valuation must follow the governing circular and residuary valuation principles, and the invoice value on which credit was originally taken is a permissible basis for determining the amount payable.