<?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>2008 (3) TMI 219 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30699</link>
    <description>Software developed and supplied for process control systems, distributed control systems and programmable logic controllers was treated as computer software for excise classification and exemption purposes. The Tribunal applied common parlance and trade parlance, noting that software and computer software were understood as synonymous in the relevant market and that no statutory distinction existed in the excise tariff for the period in question. It also declined to apply a definition drawn from a customs notification relied on by the Revenue, since it concerned a different context and period. The assessee&#039;s classification was accepted and exemption under the notification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 219 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30699</link>
      <description>Software developed and supplied for process control systems, distributed control systems and programmable logic controllers was treated as computer software for excise classification and exemption purposes. The Tribunal applied common parlance and trade parlance, noting that software and computer software were understood as synonymous in the relevant market and that no statutory distinction existed in the excise tariff for the period in question. It also declined to apply a definition drawn from a customs notification relied on by the Revenue, since it concerned a different context and period. The assessee&#039;s classification was accepted and exemption under the notification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>