<?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>2005 (9) TMI 349 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115706</link>
    <description>Imported ATM on-line pace application software was treated as eligible &quot;computer software&quot; for exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. The circular-based test drew a distinction between machine-readable, interactive software used through an automatic data processing machine and software meant to operate a machine performing a specific non-data-processing function. On the technical facts, the item was described as a user-interface program loaded on a personal computer within the ATM, running under an operating system and providing interactivity. It was not shown to be software for a machine-specific function, so the exemption applied and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:23:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 349 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115706</link>
      <description>Imported ATM on-line pace application software was treated as eligible &quot;computer software&quot; for exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. The circular-based test drew a distinction between machine-readable, interactive software used through an automatic data processing machine and software meant to operate a machine performing a specific non-data-processing function. On the technical facts, the item was described as a user-interface program loaded on a personal computer within the ATM, running under an operating system and providing interactivity. It was not shown to be software for a machine-specific function, so the exemption applied and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>