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 retrospective exemption enactment and Notification No. 217 dated 02.04.1986 prima facie protected captively consumed goods from duty for the period 01.03.1986 to 02.04.1986, justifying waiver of pre-deposit.
Analysis: The order notes that Notification No. 118/75 stood rescinded with the new tariff regime from 01.03.1986, but the same exemption principle was reintroduced by Notification No. 217 dated 02.04.1986. The retrospective legislation provided that notifications issued between 03.03.1986 and 08.08.1986 were to be deemed effective from 01.03.1986. On that basis, the captively consumed goods were treated as prima facie covered by the retrospective protection, and the earlier status quo ante was regarded as not disturbed.
Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to unconditional stay of the pre-deposit demand, and the issue was decided in favour of the applicants.