TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a place outside India, for import into India by the Appellant before us, M/s.Rane Holdings Ltd., on August 30, 2006, a commodity described as "SET SAP Tutor Release 2.1 consisting of DE 85243100 / DE 85243920" with a value of EUR1.5. A courier Bill of Entry, also on the record, reveals that on September 1, 2006, the Appellant imported a CD with a purported invoice value of EUR1.5. This amounted to about Rs.90/--. 3. Before this, i.e., on April 1, 2006, M/s.Rane Engine Valves Ltd. (REV) entered into an End User Value License Agreement (EUVLA) with Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing P. Ltd. ("SAP India"). Under clause 2.1 of this Agreement, REV secured a license to use software, documentation, and other proprietary informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....006 was entered into between the appellant and SP India. It was found that the agreement granted a license to the appellant for mySAP ERP software. It was further noted that in consideration for this license, the Appellant agreed to pay a license fee of Rs.31,50,000/-- to SAP India in respect of which SAP India raised an invoice dated July 24, 2006 on the Appellant. It was found that the CD or DVD containing the software was shipped by SAP Germany directly to the appellant by means of the aforesaid Airway Bill of August 30, 2006 and the aforesaid courier bill of entry showing import on September 1, 2006. The Order--in--Original therefore finds that the license fee paid by the Appellant is in respect of the import of SAP software from SAP AG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he invoice relating to the imported tutor software was only a proforma invoice for a nominal value of EUR1.5, which clearly states that the terms of payment are "free of charge." Therefore, what has been imported and what is relatable to the EUVLA and the assignment thereof to the appellant are two different things. (ii) Second, even if all of the findings in the OIO as upheld by the impugned orders are to be accepted as correct, the importer in respect of the software which was related to the EUVLA is not the appellant but REV. The appellant secured rights in respect of that software only by means of an assignment of the Agreement from REV to the Appellant. The liability for Customs duty, without doubt, lies in the hands of the importer.....