<?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>2018 (4) TMI 150 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358039</link>
    <description>Software supplied under a licence model as a common banking platform, even if customised, integrated and implemented for individual banks, may be treated as packaged or canned software rather than customised software for excise purposes. On that basis, the excise valuation could extend to the software value recoverable as licence fee, while the service tax component for development, customisation, installation, integration and implementation could be adjusted through cenvat credit. Later exemption notifications extending relief to the licence value were treated as applicable for the relevant period, and the limitation objection was rejected on the facts stated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 150 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358039</link>
      <description>Software supplied under a licence model as a common banking platform, even if customised, integrated and implemented for individual banks, may be treated as packaged or canned software rather than customised software for excise purposes. On that basis, the excise valuation could extend to the software value recoverable as licence fee, while the service tax component for development, customisation, installation, integration and implementation could be adjusted through cenvat credit. Later exemption notifications extending relief to the licence value were treated as applicable for the relevant period, and the limitation objection was rejected on the facts stated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>