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 impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded because the core question whether cleatted or riveted stator stampings amounted to manufacture was not decided.
Analysis: The disputed activity was limited to cleatting or riveting loose stampings into stacks. The central question was whether that process brought into existence a new and distinct article known in the market as a stator so as to attract duty. The impugned order proceeded on classification but did not answer the remand direction requiring a finding on manufacture. A mere change in classification was not enough to establish manufacture unless the emergence of a new product was shown. Since the adjudicating authority had again failed to decide the core issue, the order could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the issue of manufacture in accordance with the earlier remand directions.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded to the extent that the demand order was not sustained and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the foundational question of manufacture.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudicating authority fails to decide the essential question whether the activity results in manufacture of a new product, an order based only on classification cannot stand and must be remanded for determination of that core issue.