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 demand of central excise duty on base yarn or the waste arising during conversion into textured yarn could be sustained when the waste was claimed to be exempt and the base yarn duty had already been discharged at the stage of clearance of textured yarn under the relevant notifications.
Analysis: The demand as confirmed below proceeded on base yarn, although the notice had proposed duty on waste yarn. The assessee established that the waste generated in the texturising process was exempt under Notification No. 26 B/72 and that Notification No. 130/77 permitted discharge of the duty liability on the base yarn at the stage of clearance of textured yarn, if not already paid. The Revenue did not rebut the position that the base yarn duty incidence had in fact been borne by the assessee. On these facts, the demand could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.