https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764791 CESTAT Chennai remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration regarding differential duty demand on software import. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish whether the appellant paid Rs.31,50,000 to SAP India and whether the appellant was actually an importer. Key issues requiring examination include whether duties paid by REV/SAP India would nullify appellant's liability, the correctness of extended limitation period invocation, and applicable penalties. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand for reconsideration of these factual and legal aspects. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jan 2025 08:47:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764791 CESTAT Chennai remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration regarding differential duty demand on software import. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish whether the appellant paid Rs.31,50,000 to SAP India and whether the appellant was actually an importer. Key issues requiring examination include whether duties paid by REV/SAP India would nullify appellant's liability, the correctness of extended limitation period invocation, and applicable penalties. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand for reconsideration of these factual and legal aspects. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764791