Software classification turns on actual features and evidence, not copyright terms alone; remand ordered for fresh examination.

Imported software must be classified on its own features and the record evidence to determine whether it is customised software eligible for exemption or packaged software liable to CVD. Retention of copyright, patent rights, source code, or a non-exclusive licence to use does not, by itself, establish that the software is packaged, because customised software may also be supplied on similar terms. The earlier precedent cited was distinguishable because it involved transfer of exclusive usage rights, which was not shown here. The adjudicating authority had not properly examined the appellant's evidence on the distinction, so the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported software was "customised software" eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated 01.03.2006, or whether it was "packaged" or "canned" software liable to CVD.

Analysis: The nature of the software had to be determined from its own features and the material placed on record. Retention of copyright, patent rights, source code, or a non-exclusive right to use did not by itself establish that the software was packaged software, because even customised software may be contracted on similar terms. The earlier relied-upon case was distinguishable on facts, as it involved transfer of exclusive rights to use the software, which was not the position here. The adjudicating authority had not examined the appellant's material on the distinction between customised and packaged software.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh examination of the documents and a clear finding on the nature of the software.

---