TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether customs duty could be sustained on the software component of imported diamond scanning machines when service tax had already been levied and paid on the same software transaction; (ii) Whether the show cause notices and consequential order-in-originals proposing customs duty could survive in the face of the final service tax adjudication; (iii) Whether the amount deposited under protest was liable to be refunded.
Issue (i): Whether customs duty could be sustained on the software component of imported diamond scanning machines when service tax had already been levied and paid on the same software transaction.
Analysis: The software supplied by the foreign vendors had already been subjected to service tax under the reverse charge regime, and that adjudication had attained finality. Once the same software transaction was treated as a taxable service and tax was collected on that basis, it could not again be treated as part of the imported goods for the purpose of demanding customs duty. The Court treated the transaction as a single composite factual situation and held that the revenue could not adopt diametrically opposite stands on the same component of value.
Conclusion: The customs duty demand on the software component was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notices and consequential order-in-originals proposing customs duty could survive in the face of the final service tax adjudication.
Analysis: The Court held that the service tax adjudication had finally crystallised the tax character of the software as a service. In that situation, the customs authorities could not continue proceedings on a contrary basis alleging that the same value formed part of the imported goods. The impugned notices and the resulting adjudications were therefore inconsistent with the prior final determination and could not stand.
Conclusion: The show cause notices and the order-in-originals were liable to be quashed.
Issue (iii): Whether the amount deposited under protest was liable to be refunded.
Analysis: Since the foundation of the customs proceedings failed and the impugned adjudications were set aside, the amount deposited provisionally or under protest had no surviving basis to be retained by the department.
Conclusion: The deposited amount was directed to be refunded.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the customs proceedings were set aside, and consequential monetary relief followed from the quashing of the impugned actions.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the same transaction has been finally taxed as a service, the revenue cannot, on the same facts and value, simultaneously sustain a customs duty demand by treating the same component as part of imported goods.
TaxTMI 
