This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.Existing Users Log InUsername or EmailPassword Remember Me Forgot password? Click here to resetNew User? Click here to register Post navigation IMP : Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 35L(1)(b) – HELD allegation of wilful suppression, I find no merit given that this was not the allegation or scope of the Show-Cause Notices issued. Moreover, the representations sent by the Indian Bank Association to the Joint Secretary, TRU, Central Board of Excise and Customs confirm that there was a lack of clarity with regards to the method of payment of this tax, for which there was an ongoing dialogue between the banking institutions and Central Government, negating any claims of “wilful suppression”. One cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the position of law, was in a state of flux, at the relevant period. Hence, and in view of the reasons given above, the present case does not warrant remand to the Tribunal, and this dispute should, in my opinion, stand finally concluded at this stage. HELD one transaction of sale of software and once it is accepted that the software put in the CD is ‘goods’, then there cannot be any separate service element in the transaction. We are saying so because even otherwise the user is put in possession and full control of the software. It amounts to ‘deemed sale’ which would not attract service tax.