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, for availing the benefit of Notification No. 432/86-C.E., one-to-one co-relation was required between the input Napthalene and the finished dye intermediates.
Analysis: The notification granted exemption to the extent of duty already paid on Napthalene used in the manufacture of the final product. Its language required only that the inputs be used in the manufacture of the final products. There was no express or implied requirement that the exemption had to be confined to the exact quantity of inputs contained in a particular lot of final goods cleared from the factory. The interpretation adopted by the Delhi High Court in relation to similar notification language, and the Larger Bench view that such notifications do not mandate lot-wise correlation between inputs and final products, supported this construction.
Conclusion: One-to-one co-relation was not required. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.