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 two appellants were entitled to separate benefit of duty-free clearances up to Rs. 5 lakhs each under Notification No. 150/71-C.E. dated 26-7-1971, or whether the clearances had to be clubbed as arising from one factory run at different times by different manufacturers.
Analysis: The notification limited nil-rate clearances to Rs. 5 lakhs where a factory producing ready-to-wear apparel was run at different times of a financial year by different manufacturers. The factual materials showed that the premises had originally been a single licensed and approved factory, the alteration of the licensed premises into a separate unit had not been approved, the second appellant was not granted a separate licence for the leased portion, and the same machinery was used by both appellants. These circumstances established that the factory remained one throughout the relevant year, even though manufacture was carried on by the appellants during different periods.
Conclusion: The benefit of exemption was available only to a total aggregate of Rs. 5 lakhs for the factory, and not separately to each appellant; the demand based on clubbing of clearances was upheld.