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 captive consumption of Residual Fuel Oil attributable to the extraction of sulphur cleared without payment of duty was ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the fuel oil was used for manufacture of sulphur, or whether it was used in the refinery for generation of steam and for the manufacture of petroleum products, with sulphur emerging only as an incidental by-product. The Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case had held that the refinery consumed fuel oil for generating steam required in the refining process and that sulphur was extracted only because the petroleum products had to conform to sulphur limits. That finding, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, showed that no quantity of fuel oil was used with the object of manufacturing sulphur. Accordingly, the exemption could not be denied merely because sulphur was cleared without payment of duty.
Conclusion: The captive consumption exemption remained available and the demand of duty on the disputed quantity of fuel oil was not sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where fuel oil is consumed in the refining process for generation of steam and the alleged exempt clearances arise only from an incidental by-product, duty cannot be demanded on the footing that the fuel oil was used to manufacture the by-product.