Where One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Department was that since the software on the master media and the software on the pre-recorded media is the same, there is no manufacture because the end-product is not different from the original product SC in Oracle Software India Ltd. 320 ITR 546(SC) quoted Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 192 CTR (SC) 257 : (2004) 137 STC 620 (SC) It was held that a software programme may consist of commands which enable the computer to perform a designated task. The copyright in the programme may remain with the originator of the programme. But, the moment copies are made and marketed, they become goods. It was held that even an intellectual property, once put on to a media, whether it will be in the form of computer discs or cassettes and marketed, it becomes goods. It was further held that there is no difference between a sale of a software programme on a CD/floppy from a sale of music on a cassette/CD. In all such cases the intellectual property is incorporated on a media for purposes of transfer and, therefore, the software and the media cannot be split up. It was further held, in that judgment, that even though the intellectual process is embodied in a media, the logic or the intelligence of the programme remains an intangible property. It was further held that when one buys a software programme, one buys not the original but a copy. It was further held that it is the duplicate copy which is read into the buyer’s computer and copied on memory device [See pp. 630 and 631 of the said judgment]. If one reads the judgment in Tata Consultancy Services (supra), it becomes clear that the intelligence/logic (contents) of a programme do not change. They remain the same, be it in the original or in the copy. The Department needs to take into account the ground realities of the business and sometimes over-simplified tests create confusion, particularly, in modern times when technology grows each day. To say, that contents of the original and the copy are the same and, therefore, there is (sic—no) manufacture would not be a correct proposition. What one needs to examine in each case is the process undertaken by the assessee.[Para 11 of Judgement]