9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. and subsequent amendment by Notification No. 3/98-Cus. 2. Retrospective application of amended definition of Computer Software. 3. Applicability of exemption benefits to imported Computer Software for telecom purposes. 4. Comparison with similar cases and previous tribunal decisions. Analysis: 1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. and its subsequent amendment by Notification No. 3/98-Cus. The appellant imported Computer Software for telecom purposes, initially cleared duty-free under the former notification but later demanded differential duty due to the amendment. 2. The main issue was the retrospective application of the amended definition of Computer Software. The appellant argued that the subsequent amendment cannot have a retrospective effect on their case, as the software satisfied the conditions of the original notification in force at the time of import. 3. The appellant contended that the Computer Software imported for telecom purposes should be entitled to the exemption benefits under the original notification. They argued against the application of the amended definition, which introduced restrictive conditions, claiming that the software in question met the criteria for exemption. 4. The Tribunal considered a similar case where the West Zonal Bench at Mumbai had allowed the benefit of the original notification to software imported by a telephone service provider. The Tribunal cited the previous decision and observed that the software in question was entitled to exemption under the notification in force at the time of import. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal, following the precedent set by a previous case, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential reliefs to the appellant. The decision was based on the identical facts present in a previous case, affirming the entitlement of the appellant to exemption benefits under the original notification.
|
