<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (11) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85866</link>
    <description>Software packages were classifiable for exemption only if they fell within the notification&#039;s functional distinction between application software and system software. Programmes developed to solve specific user problems, such as word processors, spreadsheets and math packages, qualified as application software, while programmes concerned with basic internal computer operations or utility and environment-support functions did not. The broader commercial description advanced for the assessee was inconsistent with the tariff notification and could not override that classification. Relief was therefore confined to the items properly identified as application software on the basis accepted from the departmental classification, and the wider exemption claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:21:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85866</link>
      <description>Software packages were classifiable for exemption only if they fell within the notification&#039;s functional distinction between application software and system software. Programmes developed to solve specific user problems, such as word processors, spreadsheets and math packages, qualified as application software, while programmes concerned with basic internal computer operations or utility and environment-support functions did not. The broader commercial description advanced for the assessee was inconsistent with the tariff notification and could not override that classification. Relief was therefore confined to the items properly identified as application software on the basis accepted from the departmental classification, and the wider exemption claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>