2005 (4) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 with regard to computer workstation and storage racks which were procured locally after being duly certified by the Directorate of STP. They claimed the same to be in the nature of Capital Goods required for software development for export. They also contended that the demands were barred by time. However, their pleas have been rejected by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submitted that these items cannot be considered as Capital Goods as they are not capable of use as input for development of software for exports. He relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. Ginni Filaments Ltd. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) = 2005 (66) RLT 865 (S.C.)] wherein tables, chairs, air-conditioners, AC sheets, etc. have been held to be not Capital Goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e for export purpose cannot be developed. In the Wipro Ltd. case also, a detailed examination has been done and it has been found that they are very much necessary and essential for the purpose of development of software. In the case of Apex Court judgment in CCE v. Ginni Filaments Ltd., it was clearly found that the tables, chairs, air-conditioners, AC sheets, etc. could not be considered as Capi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X