9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-Cus., dated 1-3-97 as amended. This entry reads as follows : Sl. No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Standard Rate Additional duty Condition No. 173 49 or 85.24 Computer Software Nil - - - - 2 The imported goods were examined and it was found that the first import of software was for use to control the speed of the drive motors which moved the heated billets from the re-heat furnace by regulating the RPM of the motors. The input to software was provided from the encoders, hot metal detectors, pyrometers, limit switch etc. The second import of software had been specially developed by the suppliers for management of data ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Shri R. D. Negi, SDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented despite the notice. We have considered the submissions made before us. The case is fully covered in favour of the respondents by the above mentioned decisions. Further, the decision of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 240/2002-B, dated 21-5-2002 in the case of C.C. (ACU) , New Delhi v. Magnum Solution (P) Ltd. [2002 (150) E.L.T. 107 (T)] is also passed on the similar facts and on the same issue in which the appeal of the Revenue is rejected. The Tribunal have arrived at the following findings in the cited decision : 7. In the present matter, it has been mentioned by the Adjudicating Authority in the adjudication order that the different modules of software imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing order : Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed . The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Computer Software imported for expansion of Mobile Switching Centre (MSC) for telecom purposes were entitled to the exemption benefit under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-1997 at the relevant time and subsequent amendment to the said notification vide Notification No. 3/98-Cus., dated 11-2-1998 could not be given any retrospective effect . 6. On a specific query, during the course of hearing, the ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue did not dispute that the facts and the law involved in the present case are covered by the ratio of the afore-mentioned decisions of the Apex Court in Usha Martin Telekom. Ltd. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
