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 finished goods lying in stock of a 100% Export Oriented Unit on debonding were chargeable to duty under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or under the main charging provision in Section 3(1).
Analysis: The proviso to Section 3(1) applies to goods produced or manufactured in a free trade zone or by a 100% export-oriented undertaking when such goods are allowed to be sold in India under the export-import policy. Permission to debond an EOU and permission to sell goods in the Domestic Tariff Area are distinct concepts, granted by different authorities for different purposes. Debonding does not itself amount to permission to sell the closing stock in India under the policy framework governing DTA sales by EOUs. The special proviso, therefore, could not be extended to finished goods of an undertaking that had ceased to be under the EOU scheme and was only clearing its stock on debonding.
Conclusion: The proviso to Section 3(1) was inapplicable to the finished stock on debonding, and duty was payable under the main charging provision, not under the proviso.
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applies only where goods are specifically allowed to be sold in India under the relevant export policy, and debonding of a 100% EOU does not by itself amount to such permission.