TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities that in addition to supply of domestically manufactured telecom equipment, the appellant had also undertaken import and supply of various items of software. These supplies were also made to the same telecom service providers. Therefore, show cause notices were issued alleging that the appellant was required to include the price of the imported software also in the value of the equipment supplied and pay duty on such combined values. The appellant resisted the demand stating that excise duty is attracted only on the goods manufactured in India and that the software imported and supplied separately cannot form part of the value of the telecom equipment manufactured. It was also pointed out that the imported software did not form pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that excess duty can apply only to goods manufactured in India and not to goods imported and supplied. It is pointed out that no claim for Central Excise duty could be made since the software in question was never brought to the factory. It is further pointed out that it is well settled that software supplied alongwith hardware is not to be treated as part of the hardware, while subjecting hard ware to duty. The appellants have relied on the following decisions in support of their case. Sprint RPG India Ltd. v. CC-I, Delhi - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) PSI Data Systems Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Commissioner v. Barber Ship Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. A293 (S.C.) Commissioner v. BPL Telecom Ltd. - 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise only in case the imported items were parts or components of the goods manufactured in the factory and these parts were taken to the factory, assembled with the equipment and supplied thereafter as one equipment or equipment in knocked down condition. That is not the case here. Therefore, occasion for raising Central Excise duty did not arise. 7. That apart, integrality of the software for a particular purpose is no ground for including software in the assessment of hardware. This issue remains settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of PSI Data Systems Ltd. v. CCE. We read the relevant portion of the judgment :- "13. Secondly, that a computer and its software are distinct and separate is clear, both as a matter of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
