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's procurement and use of excisable goods without payment of duty, followed by export prior to grant of permission and alleged diversion of inputs, amounted only to a procedural lapse so as to retain the benefit of the notification and rules, or constituted substantive non-compliance disentitling the appellant to exemption.
Analysis: The appellant had exported goods before the requisite permission and annexure 45 were issued and had also procured duty-free material for purposes not shown to be in strict conformity with the prescribed conditions. The claimed export was not treated as an instance of mere irregularity, because the goods procured under the concessional scheme were not used in the intended manner and the factual pattern showed non-observance of the mandatory conditions governing procurement and utilisation. The cited authorities on condonation of procedural lapses were distinguished on the ground that they did not cover a case where the prescribed scheme had been breached in substance. In such a situation, the benefit of the notification could not be retained.
Conclusion: The non-compliance was held to be substantive and not a curable procedural defect, and the benefit of the notification was denied.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are procured under a concessional duty scheme, the prescribed conditions for permission, utilisation, and export must be strictly complied with, and a breach going to the substance of the scheme cannot be excused as a mere procedural irregularity.