9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Denial of exemption under Notification No. 140/91-Cus. for specific goods required for software development. Analysis: The appeal stemmed from an order denying exemption under Notification No. 140/91-Cus. for goods like Building Management System, Access Control System, Communication equipment, and LCD Projectors necessary for software development. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the benefit of the notification, considering them as capital goods crucial for setting up software technology parks. The certificate from the Chief Executive of the Software Technology Park Society was deemed impartial and expert, following the precedent set by the Tribunal in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. CCE, 1998. The Revenue contested, arguing that the items were not capital goods essential for software development and export. However, the appellant contended that a similar issue was previously addressed by the Tribunal in Wipro Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, where the benefit of the same notification was upheld. The appellant presented a copy of the order as evidence. Upon thorough consideration, it was found that the goods were indeed used for software development for export purposes. The Commissioner (Appeals) had meticulously analyzed the necessity of these goods for software development, relying on the certificate from the Government agency. The absence of evidence to discredit the certificate further supported the decision. Referring to the judgment in Wipro Ltd., it was established that the goods in question were crucial for software development, including items like Video Conferencing Equipment, LCD projectors, and security systems. Consequently, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld, and the appeal was rejected following the precedent set by the Tribunal in similar cases.
|
