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 di-calcium phosphate manufactured and cleared by the appellants was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75 as amended by Notification No. 221/79 dated 30-6-1979 on the footing that it was a bone product.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the nature of the product and whether it answered the description of "crushed bones and bone products" introduced into the exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that the department did not dispute that the product was not used in fertiliser mixture and found support in an earlier Tribunal decision granting the same notification benefit to di-calcium phosphate in comparable circumstances. The earlier view had also been relied upon in subsequent connected matters and there was no reason to depart from it.
Conclusion: Di-calcium phosphate manufactured by the appellants was held entitled to exemption under the amended notification, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand and denial of exemption could not stand, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the product manufactured is found to fall within the exempted category of bone products and the earlier binding tribunal view supports that classification, exemption under the relevant notification must be granted.