Customs exemption for scientific equipment does not extend to imported software; refund denial and duty demand were upheld.

Imported software described as a bipole device and stimulation software was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 70/81-Customs because the notification covered scientific and technological equipment, apparatus, instruments, and their spare parts or components. On that construction, software did not fall within the ordinary meaning of the exempted categories, so the exemption conditions were not met. The denial of exemption and rejection of the refund claim were upheld, and the duty demand confirmed below remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported software described as a bipole device and stimulation software was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 70/81-Customs.

Analysis: The notification exempted scientific and technological equipment, apparatus and instruments, including spare parts and components. The goods imported were software and did not fall within the ordinary meaning of any of those categories. On that construction, the conditions for exemption were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 70/81-Customs was correctly denied, and the rejection of the refund claim was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the duty demand as confirmed below remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Software does not fall within a notification granting exemption only to scientific and technological equipment, apparatus, instruments, and their spare parts or components.

---