Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.92 seconds)
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd on 30 August, 2007
cites
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs M/S. Acer India Ltd on 24 September, 2004
4. While issuing notice this Court noted that the matter
appeared to be covered by 3-Judge Bench's decision of this
Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v.
ACER India Ltd. (2004 (8) SCC 173). But it was contended by
learned Additional Solicitor General that the question whether
Hard Discs fitted to the Computer would be treated as a
Software was not specifically dealt with in the said case. Notice
was issued and the matter was listed for final hearing.
Cce vs Lipi Data Systems Ltd. on 3 June, 2003
In this connection, reference was made to
this Court's judgment in CCE Vs. PSI Data Systems [1989 (39)
ELT 692] and Commissioner Vs. Acer India Ltd. [2004 (172)
ELT 289].
M/S Sprint Rpg India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-I, Delhi on 20 January, 2000
The ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the
case of Sprint RPG India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, [2000 (116)
ELT 6 (SC)] was wrongly applied to the facts of the case by the
lower appellate authority.
Barber Ship Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. on 23 December, 1999
It was argued that the issue
arising in this case had already been conclusively decided by
this Court in the case of Barber Ship Management's case
(supra) and, therefore, there was nothing further to be
examined in this case. It was submitted that Software-loaded
Hard Disc, being "recorded media for sound or other similarly
recorded phenomenaexcluding products of Chapter 37" was
to be classified under Heading 85.24. The department had no
objection to classifying Software-recorded Hard Disc Drive, if
imported without any other apparatus, under Heading 85.24.
Hence the lower authorities should have been taken the aid of
Note 6 to Chapter 85 for classifying the Software-loaded Hard
Disc Drives under heading 85.24. Reference was also made to
the HSN Notes under Heading 85.24. It was submitted that
the authorities below had failed to note the clear distinction
between Computer and Software despite decisions of this
Court on the point.
1