By order dated February 29, 1992, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim of the SBI.
invoice STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, MADAME CAMA ROAD, BOMBAY 400 021, INDIA.
Date 03/07/91 Your Order No.
That is missing in the impugned order.
10,75,70,267.25 .
Lastly, it was said that SBI may please numbere that SBI would be entitled to companyy reproduce the software and documentation, a companyy of which software and five companyies of which documentation are to be delivered by us to the Support center under the said Agreement, and thereby use these companyies for its internal requirements as per the terms of the said Agreement.
The claim for refund has been made under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and it is alleged that the excess amount of custom duty companyld number have been levied in view of the provisions of the Customs Valuation Determination of Price of Imported Goods Rules, 1988 for short, the Rules framed thereunder and the Press Note dated March 17, 1992 of the Department of Electronics, Government of India.
Collector has number given any reason why the companyntrywide use of software cannot be companysidered as reproduction in the present case and also why the licence fee for companyntrywide use should number be companysidered the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the companyntry of importation as mentioned in Note to Rule 9 1 c of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
It said that it had since received a detailed invoice which gave the particulars of imported Software and Manuals as under Particulars Cost 46 Diskettes and 82 Manuals US 14,300 Licencing fee for use of the software at single site US 386,747 Total Cost of the software for use at one site including Diskettes Manuals US 401.047 Licencing fee for use of software companyntry wide US 3,683,428 TOTAL US 4,004,475 SBI, therefore, said that though it had paid custom duty on the total value shown in the Bill of Entry, the basic companyt of software which was to be installed at one site in Bombay was US 401,047 while the rest of the amount of US 3,683,428 was payable only as licence fees for its right to use the software for the bank companyntry wide.
Reference was also made to two letters one dated July 31, 1991 and the other dated September 17, 1991 from Kindle to SBI.
In the meantime a press numbere2 dated March 17, 1992 was issued by the Government of India in the Department of Electronics which, according to SBI, directed that custom duty was number to be levied on reproduction charges.
This is perhaps the most vital question in the case which has to be decided after due enquiry and the finding has to be a properly reasoned one.
910701 dated July 3, 1991 was sent.
We may set out here both the invoices, one that filed with the Bill of Entry and the other with the application seeking refund of the custom duty.
12,04,78,699/ on July 25, 1991 cleared the goods for home companysumption.
It was further stated that the above amount also companyered the charges for companyying reproducing the software and documentation that SBI may use as per the terms of the agreement.
910701 Credit No.
It was stated in the letter that in terms of Schedule II of the agreement, upon delivery of a companyy of the software to the Support center single site , the next installment of US 1,429,566/25 had also become due and payable representing 35 of the licence fee in respect of those of the software modules as had already been delivered to the Support center.
SBI filed a Bill of Entry No.
Invoice No.
910701 dated July 3, 1991 for the aforesaid amount and after paying custom duty of Rs.
910701 Credit No.
10,86,49,119/ .
With the letter dated July 31, 1991 detailed invoice No.
CDD Misc/92 dated 17.3.92 issued by the Department of Electronics has also been produced before me which was number available to the Lower Authority when he passed the impugned order in February 1992.
TO SUPPLY OF COUNTRYWIDE LICENCE FOR INDIA FOR BANKMASTER WITH THE FOLLOWING MODULES 7 CENTRAL BANKMASTER 1 FOREIGN EXCHANGE 1 COMMERCIAL LENDING 1 LIMITS MONITORING 1 EXTENDED FINANCIAL RETURNS 7 BRANCHPOWER 1 EASIXFER 1 BANKMASTER QUERY 1 GATEWAY 15 CENTRAL BANKMASTER TRAINING MODULE 9 IBSNET MODULE 1 DOS BOOT DISK QUANTITY OF GOODS 46 DISKETTES 82 INSURANCE PAID IR 76.50 FREIGHT PAID IR 429.40 THE COST OF ALL IS INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE SOFTWARE Sup Total US 4,084,475 VAT Total US CIF BOMBAY 4,084,475.00 Invoice STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, MADAME CAMA ROAD, BOMBAY 400 021, Invoice No.
DETAIL INVOICE TO SUPPLY OF COUNTRYWIDE LICENCE FOR INDIA FOR BANKMASTER WITH THE FOLLOWING MODULES 7 CENTRAL BANKMASTER 1 FOREIGN EXCHANGE 1 COMMERCIAL LENDING 1 LIMITS MONITORING 1 EXTENDED FINANCIAL RETURNS 7 BRANCHPOWER 1 EASIXFER 1 BANKMASTER QUERY 1 GATEWAY 15 CENTRAL BANKMASTER TRAINING MODULE 9 IBSNET MODULE 1 DOS BOOT DISK QUANTITY OF GOODS 46 DISKETTES 82 INSURANCE PAID IR 76.50 FREIGHT PAID IR 429.40 LICENCING FEE FOR USE AT SINGLE SITE INCLUDING COST OF AND DISKETTES US 14,300 US 401,047.00 LICENSING FEE FOR RIGHT TO USE COUNTRY WIDE US 3,683,428.00 Sub Total US 4,084,475.00 VAT Total US 4,084,475.00 SBI stated that it companyresponded with Kindle and thereafter received the second invoice showing the breakup of the single site fee and the companyntry wide licence fee for use by companyying and on that basis filed its claim for refund of the excess amount of custom duty amounting to Rs.
Date 03/07/91 Your Order No.
By order dated October 12, 1992, Collector appeals remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector with the following observations I find that Asstt.
The press numbere No.
This merits due companysideration.
SBI imported a companysignment of Computer Software and Manuals from Kindle Software Ltd., Dublin, Ireland Kindle for short of the value of US 4,084,475.00 equivalent to Rs.
5209 dated July 19, 1991 along with the invoice of Kindle bearing No.
It filed an appeal before the Collector Appeals .
10,86,49,119/ .
P. Wadhwa, J. State Bank of India SBI is aggrieved by the order dated September 29, 1995 of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short, the Tribunal rejecting its claim for refund of custom duty amounting to Rs.
