High Court Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Microsoft Corporation India … on 26 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Microsoft Corporation India … on 26 August, 2010
Author: N.Kumar And H.S.Kempanna


~ This 831% is film! £.il’Id£l’ swim 13%} at the mamas

, –.Act;;1%2’_.arising wt or!’ order mted 17.12.20£1? passed in

‘—A.pg:r§al’~?§_’3§?¥(37f20G5 {Final ewe: No.14’¥9!2W?’) . Dffiving that

:hisT.’.–Hc::fwe v:’.’.RES&i’E: %
we Hc::~m_e m…:us*r;cE N.!-(UMA_R: fig 71?
me Hm-am MR,JUSTi€3E-§§.8.K£?{§EPAN&i;§s %
C.S.T.A. Ne:17:2cs_§
cmnmzsarmer ofC415ta.=!_’t’¢$;
Baadquarters Grate,
C.R.B13¥§d¥§1g=Queeri«fs
Bangaiarewfiafi » ….Appe£!ant
(3,: &’§.Y.Hag%pir&5*a;:i;:,»?vd¥}¢:vtm§*&};. ‘
Mi$.!’»§e::rosa’E£ %%
India Privjafiie Limited,” ~ A V
The ‘£”:;r’e£ei'” E52-5i$r%’fi Centrm’

Nk3..7c, mr:;~;,: ‘I=5a ¢;§,..,V _

Nw _D%E_!1E;.’ T. – mfiesmndmt

Corporation, U.S.A. Tm Dsmrtment
*’_gVas §’:e inspacteé 53: a Cnartsrea Engmeer. Ha
2:23; as item in-m-tea is a mode: “hp workmfien

C;$’?&, fT!’2$&8

M

This CSTA nursing an far admissim this day, N-I-KJMAR,

3., déivared the fdiawing:-

JU£EMENT

This %1 is by the ravemza against the
by the Tfibuna! ans: :1 Searver though a Cajmtw mtrai
{mm imparting as ‘:2 times not far: witrzirz tn;
hand psrsmal ecrnputers (Pe>:’sa’:ai’I§g7:E§}AV;.i._; »..#. ‘V

2. The drain: mrecter.+G-9ne:§:a;V’é¢aAf?–_F’::sffi_sig§§’ raaagma
a Cirwiar No.16!2″% dated that amend

hand ‘pasana! aim be

permitted fiiéame under the psrwisians 6!
para 5.’! cf 83% senérze prcrvidms. In the
irjstant the imported gaads deswibed as HP
presuming aquiprrmt) amina invoice

3 632% i”:’;’2&98

zxsw ma saw appears it: have been used far arwnd 3

years am has 3 resifixai iifa csf amend 1% years.

As $23 aferesraid Cireuiar gtmféfits firm! at’ _

gaeds of the natura rrnanizianed abava, 313 a§udit_:at§::.igf’jav::1th.§:fity ”

traatw the server as a Cemputer and as a,’d4!if:i’?.tufaaf.l§.3};..’¥t*- was,%§»%k%J’
secmcs ham cornputar, he new that’, we esémés-.’5«aVea Ezviéiafitqjgtééa
me am Poiécy under section 11%;!) and L .?’1′-VV1E'(&) cf ma

Cisaezms Act and gave an the goods on

saaymnt o: fine wamim. malty as
Rs.2£I,%fii+. in (Mmals)
held that, {reg is not eovamd
under the § a_%d -‘as §1e assesses did net
deniare the Jfzzvés-dedaratian, he rewmed
tljgfine The revenue awfieved
an appeal before me Tribunai. The

TzibuLi§a§”‘§z;$éd”&i_<aL§., Ffié dxaubt, servers are aiss ccrzwters but

éfé which are meant far smific agztpiimtiori

4: «i:':' ?:y;s;L».::1'ei%.'sr.r;;;e1< .N They are antiraiy afferent {rem the persona:

iaptofi carnputsrs, which are acfixaily stana-aims

M,

4 CSTA mzaas

equipments. Moreover, in commercial panance,
described as ‘servers’ only and it is also >
they don’t have the keyboard and
servers will be the larger machines ha;&n;§Vgery
The processing speed aiso will’ ‘aréhd are
van’-ms types af servers for “Thér e is no
reason to exclude mom m:n.%m-..e Goods’. so.
they are not stan;-m{g:ao the Tnbuna!
dismissed the same, the revenue
is before “”” H

3. § teamed counset for the

‘A ‘ ….. .. ”

< facts, it is clear that the goods
that ' Apersonal computers (Pcstiaptops) are the

V . covered under. Annexure- 'E', the Circular.
Tribunal was justified in nnifing that the Circular
_ déjnotfipply to the sewers of the doscnption, which is invoived In

case. In that View at the matter, we do not see any error

n/

5 $§"%'§é: £23233

ca-gmsrzea $3; gm Efifififiaé, his merétfig §£$a§'§§§'z§§§zg__ M

Es fiéarzzégsaé

3%? V