TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether phenol USP grade imported by the respondents was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. as a drug intermediate.
Analysis: The exemption claim had already been considered in earlier decisions, and the cited authorities held the issue against the Revenue. No new question was raised before the Tribunal that had not been dealt with in those decisions. The respondents' contention regarding the condition of actual user could not be examined in the department's appeal, since no cross-objection had been filed.
Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. was not disturbed in this appeal, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
TaxTMI 
