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 appellant was entitled to retain the zero-duty benefit under the EPCG licence by combining the value of two EPCG licences, and whether the demand of duty could be sustained on the alleged failure to satisfy the minimum import value condition and alleged misrepresentation.
Analysis: The appellant's entitlement was examined in the light of the EPCG scheme and Notification No. 111/95-Cus. The licensing authority had considered the appellant's request, treated the two EPCG licences as covering the same export products, and permitted retention of the zero-duty facility. The record also showed that the imported capital goods were put to use, the export obligation was fulfilled, and the licensing authority issued a letter recognizing such fulfilment. The finding of misrepresentation was rejected because no duty was payable on imports made prior to the amendment introduced by Notification No. 70/97-Cus, and the duty applicable on later imports had been discharged. The Customs authority could not disregard the licensing authority's determination in the absence of any declaration that the licence was invalid.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption and the duty demand was not sustainable.