<?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>2000 (11) TMI 603 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96039</link>
    <description>Imported billing software used on a general-purpose computer to process subscriber billing data qualified as computer software for exemption under Notification No. 11/93-Customs. The exclusion for software required to operate a machine performing a non-data-processing function did not apply because the software was used for data processing and was not required for the operation of the telecom switching system itself. Mere interaction with specialised telecom equipment was not enough to deny the exemption, and the indirect connection with the switching system was held irrelevant. The duty exemption was therefore available, and the contrary view was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:35:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 603 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96039</link>
      <description>Imported billing software used on a general-purpose computer to process subscriber billing data qualified as computer software for exemption under Notification No. 11/93-Customs. The exclusion for software required to operate a machine performing a non-data-processing function did not apply because the software was used for data processing and was not required for the operation of the telecom switching system itself. Mere interaction with specialised telecom equipment was not enough to deny the exemption, and the indirect connection with the switching system was held irrelevant. The duty exemption was therefore available, and the contrary view was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>