2012 (12) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 347/2005-CU(DB) in the case of Siemens Public Communications Networks Pvt. Ltd., the respondent-assessee herein. 2. The question raised in the present appeal is whether the software imported by the respondent-assessee is exempt being computer software. There is no dispute that computer software is exempt and not chargeable to duty. With effect from 11th February, 1998 vide amending Notification No. 3/98, an explanation was added to define the term "Computer Software". The said explanation reads as under :- "Explanation : "Computer Software" means any representation of instructions, data, sound or image, including source code and object code, recorded in a mac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chine falling under Heading 84.71. Thus, the said exemption will not cover software required for operation of any machine performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or working in conjuncture with an automatic data processing machine. More specifically, software of telecom, medical or other applications is not eligible for exemption from duty. However, software containing encyclopedia, games, books, etc. will be eligible for the exemption wherever they satisfy the interactively criterion." 4. The import in question, it is accepted, was in October, 1997, which was before the amending Notification No. 3/1998, dated 11th February, 1998. 5. Similar controversy had arisen before the Tribunal in sev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion 'computer software' was correctly interpreted by the Tribunal in BPL Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 986 (T) - 2000 (40) RLT 249 (CEGAT), which decision was followed in Usha Martin Telekom Limited v. Commissioner [2001 (138) E.L.T. 839 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 1054 (CEGAT-Kol.)J and BPL Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner [2002 (142) E.L.T. 258 (Tri.-Bang.)]. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Civil Appeals filed by the Department against the Tribunal's orders in all the three cases were dismissed by the Supreme Court." 7. It may be, however, noted that the decisions mentioned in the above paragraph were in respect of imports prior to notification dated 11th February, 1998. It is, therefore, cle....