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 anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 48/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 11.12.2014 was leviable on imported clear float glass whose actual thickness was found to be between 3.73 mm and 3.86 mm, and whether the Revenue could demand duty by extending the tolerance to treat the goods as having nominal thickness of 4 mm.
Analysis: The imported goods were actually measured and found to be below 4 mm. The earlier similar imports of the same assessee, as well as comparable imports in another matter, had been examined and no anti-dumping duty was demanded. The Tribunal held that nominal thickness was not defined in BIS in a manner warranting extension of tolerance where actual thickness was available, and the High Court found no infirmity in that approach. It was also noted that similar imports could not be subjected to two different standards for applicability of the same notification.
Conclusion: The notification did not justify levy of anti-dumping duty on the goods in question, and the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal was rightly allowed.
Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the actual thickness of imported goods is ascertainable and is below the threshold in the anti-dumping notification, duty cannot be levied by stretching tolerance to match nominal thickness, especially when similar imports have consistently been cleared without such duty.