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 duty demand and penalty required reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court decisions on excisability of goods at the stage of removal from the factory, inclusion of erection and commissioning charges, and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo adjudication.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier disposal of the dispute had not examined the later Supreme Court rulings on the distinction between goods manufactured and removed from the factory and the articles erected at site as immovable property. It also noted that the question whether the spindle frames cleared from the factory were independent excisable goods, and whether the component parts and accessories supplied for erection at site could be treated as part of the assessable value, had not been properly appreciated. In view of the controlling legal position that valuation must be determined on the basis of the goods as they leave the factory and that erection and commissioning charges for what becomes immovable property are not includible, fresh examination of the facts and evidence was necessary.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo consideration, with opportunity to the assessee and reconsideration of duty, limitation and Modvat issues as required.
Ratio Decidendi: Excisability and assessable value must be determined with reference to the goods as removed from the factory, and charges attributable to erection or commissioning of immovable property are not includible in the assessable value.