2007 (9) TMI 87 - AT - Customs

Admissibility of benefit of Not. 97/89 to imported Computer Software loaded on floppy diskette Appellant is Actual User of components i.e. computer software covered under Instrument Industry Moreover, impugned software is dedicated part of systems so exemption can not be denied

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of concession rate of duty to computer software imported under Notification No. 97/89-Cus.

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal considered the issue of whether the benefit of concession rate of duty should be granted to computer software imported by the appellants under Notification No. 97/89-Cus. The relevant condition of the Notification required the importers to produce a certificate from a designated officer certifying that the imported parts are required for the specified purpose. The importers provided an essentiality certificate from the Additional Industrial Advisor, DGTD, stating that they are the Actual User for the computer software covered under Instrument Industry. It was noted that the software imported was a dedicated part of the systems, and it was held that the benefit of exemption under the Notification was admissible to the goods imported by the appellants.

The tribunal found that the enforcement order imposing a bond on the importers due to the failure to produce clarification from CBEC within the stipulated time was not supported by the case presented by the Revenue. The tribunal observed that the reason for seeking clarification was not clearly stated in the orders of the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals). Despite the importers' efforts to obtain the required clarification, the tribunal noted that the clarification was not forthcoming from the authorities. Based on the certificate issued by the Additional Industrial Advisor, DGTD, the tribunal concluded that the computer software imported by the appellants qualified for the exemption under the Notification.

In light of the above findings, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as necessary. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the Vice-President of the tribunal, Jyoti Balasundaram.