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 Excise Board could issue directions under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act so as to override the classification settled by the Tribunal, and whether the assessee was entitled to relief and refund on that basis.
Analysis: The classification controversy concerning Di-Calcium Phosphate animal feed grade had already been resolved by the Tribunal in favour of classification under Heading 23.02 and sub-heading 2302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The subsequent departmental direction issued under Section 37B, which purported to run contrary to that decision, was held to be without authority. The earlier view had also been affirmed when the challenge to the Board's direction was rejected and the Supreme Court dismissed the matter summarily.
Conclusion: The Board could not issue directions contrary to the Tribunal's classification decision, and the assessee was entitled to the relief claimed, including liberty to seek refund of the amount collected without authority of law.