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 communications rejecting the claim for refund of Terminal Excise Duty were liable to be quashed and the refund applications restored for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's exposition of the Foreign Trade Policy.
Analysis: The refund claim arose from supplies of inputs by Domestic Tariff Area units to a 100% Export Oriented Unit and was based on the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, particularly the scheme of deemed exports under paragraph 8.3(c) and the entitlement conditions under paragraph 8.5. The impugned rejection relied on the DGFT policy circular stating that no refund of TED would be available where the supplies were ab initio exempted. However, the later Supreme Court decision clarified the relationship between ab initio exemption for EOU-related supplies and the separate entitlement of an EOU to avail the benefit of the DTA supplier under Chapter 8, subject to disclaimer and compliance with formalities. In view of that change in the governing legal position, the earlier rejection could not be sustained without fresh consideration on the updated legal basis.
Conclusion: The rejection communications were quashed and the refund claims were restored for fresh decision by the competent authority in accordance with the revised legal position.