Cc, Air Cargo Unit Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
3. with the consent of both the sides, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.4. this appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4.12.2001 passed by the commissioner of customs (appeals), vide which he has reversed the order-in-original of a.c.dated 11.11.98 and allowed benefit of notification no. 011/97-cus dated 1.3.97, to the respondents.5. the facts are not much in dispute. the respondents imported a consignment of pacs software and electricity metering components. they claimed the benefit of notification no. 011/97-cus dated 1.3.97 under which the computer software were completely exempt from the customs duty. the ac. denied the benefit of this notification, while the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the same.6. the issue regarding the applicability of the above said notification to the computer software imported by the respondents already stands settled in their favour by the tribunal judgment in the case of bpl mobile communications ltd. v. cc, mumbai 2000 (40) rlt 249 and also in hutchison max telecom ltd. v. cc, mumbai 2001 (43) rlt 967. in both these cases, identical issue was involved and benefit of notification was allowed. the commissioner has, by following the ratio of law laid down in both these cases, allowed the benefit of the notification in question to the respondents.7. the learned jdr has not been able to cite any law to the contrary.he has rather fairly admitted that pacs software was imported by the respondents on 3.12.97, before the issuance of amending notification dated 11.2.98, wherein term 'software' has been defined. earlier to that, the definition was not restricted and the software imported by the respondents were covered by notification no. 011/97-cus dated 1.3.97.8. we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and uphold the same. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Judgment:
3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

4. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide which he has reversed the Order-in-Original of A.C.dated 11.11.98 and allowed benefit of Notification No. 011/97-Cus dated 1.3.97, to the respondents.

5. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents imported a consignment of PACS software and electricity metering components. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 011/97-Cus dated 1.3.97 under which the computer software were completely exempt from the customs duty. The AC. denied the benefit of this notification, while the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the same.

6. The issue regarding the applicability of the above said notification to the computer software imported by the respondents already stands settled in their favour by the Tribunal judgment in the case of BPL Mobile Communications Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai 2000 (40) RLT 249 and also in Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai 2001 (43) RLT 967. In both these cases, identical issue was involved and benefit of notification was allowed. The Commissioner has, by following the ratio of law laid down in both these cases, allowed the benefit of the notification in question to the respondents.

7. The learned JDR has not been able to cite any law to the contrary.

He has rather fairly admitted that PACS software was imported by the respondents on 3.12.97, before the issuance of amending notification dated 11.2.98, wherein term 'software' has been defined. Earlier to that, the definition was not restricted and the software imported by the respondents were covered by Notification No. 011/97-Cus dated 1.3.97.

8. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and uphold the same. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.