Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

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.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (8) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gchi, Adv. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag, Adv. Ms. Sujita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Niraj Sharma, Adv. ORDER The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ordinary Portland Cement falling under Chapte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee during the period from 01.11.1993 to 30.06.1998 should not be recovered and penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be imposed upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Commissioner vide order confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,22,02,982 /- from the assessee. He also imposed a penalty of Rs . 1 lac each on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 holding that respondents deliberate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... IND /2003 dated 23.09.2003 confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,22,02,982 /- for recovery from the assessee and imposed a penalty of same upon them. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs each on respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3. Further, he held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption under the notification. The respondents filed an appeal before CESTAT. The CESTAT vide the impugned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... behalf relied upon the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries which had certified the installed capacity to be 1,94,040 tonnes per annum. No doubt, normally such a certificate is to be acted upon. However, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out to us that the Directorate of Industries had conceded that it had no wherewithal to ascertain the installed capacity and it simply we....