Digitised seismic data is not IT software, while late certificate production may remain a procedural condition for exemption.

Digitised seismic survey data imported on cartridges was held not to be "IT software" because it contained no source code, object code or independent interactivity, so exemption under the software entry was denied. The requirement to produce the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons certificate at the time of import was treated as procedural rather than substantive; late production did not automatically defeat the exemption claim, and that issue was remanded for fresh consideration. Penalty was set aside because no clandestine evasion or deliberate misconduct was shown and the importer could have bona fide believed the goods qualified for exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether seismic survey data imported on cartridges constituted "IT software" within the meaning of Entry 231 of Notification No. 20 of 1999; (ii) Whether failure to produce the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons certificate at the time of importation barred exemption under Entry 184 of Notification No. 20 of 1999; (iii) Whether penalty imposed on the importer was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether seismic survey data imported on cartridges constituted "IT software" within the meaning of Entry 231 of Notification No. 20 of 1999.

Analysis: The definition in the notification required a representation of instructions, data, sound or image, including source code and object code, recorded in machine-readable form and capable of manipulation or interactivity by means of an automatic data processing machine. The imported goods were only digitised seismic data. They did not contain source code or object code, were not executable programmes, and were not capable of providing interactivity on their own. The ability to process the data through separate software already installed at the user's premises did not convert the imported data into software.

Conclusion: The imported cartridges were not IT software and exemption under Entry 231 was rightly denied.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to produce the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons certificate at the time of importation barred exemption under Entry 184 of Notification No. 20 of 1999.

Analysis: The notification required production of the certificate at the time of importation, but the certificate served as proof of entitlement to the exemption. The condition was treated as procedural rather than substantive. Delay in production, by itself, was not regarded as sufficient to defeat the exemption claim, and the matter required examination of the acceptability of the certificates and related compliance.

Conclusion: Late production of the certificate did not by itself bar the exemption claim, and the issue was remanded for fresh consideration.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty imposed on the importer was sustainable.

Analysis: No finding of clandestine evasion or deliberate misconduct was recorded. The importer could have bona fide believed that the goods were software within the notification. In the absence of material showing intent to evade duty, penalty was not justified.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim based on the software entry failed, the certificate-based exemption issue was sent back for reconsideration, and the penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Digitised data lacking source code, object code and independent interactivity is not software under the exemption notification, while a certificate required to evidence entitlement may be treated as a procedural condition if the notification's object is otherwise satisfied.

---