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 criminal proceedings for alleged supply of false information and related offences under the Central Excise law could be quashed or stayed merely because the assessee's appeal against the duty demand was pending before CEGAT and recovery of duty had been stayed.
Analysis: The complaint alleged not merely non-payment of duty, but creation of fictitious documents, false claims of fly ash consumption, and misdeclaration of materials to evade duty. Those allegations constituted an independent accusation of supplying false information under the Central Excise Act. The issue before CEGAT was the correctness of the duty demand, whereas the criminal case concerned the alleged fabrication and misstatement of facts. A stay of collection of duty did not operate as a bar to cognizance of the criminal offence, because the two proceedings were not identical and the prosecution was not founded only on non-payment of the disputed duty. Any objection regarding cognizability of the IPC charge could also be raised before the trial court.
Conclusion: The petition for quashing or stay of the criminal proceedings was rejected; the prosecution was held maintainable despite the pending appeal before CEGAT.