LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Are towers and PFBs used to support the BTS/antenna capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CMA.1822/2018 · 2026:MHC:3951 · CMA No. 1822 of 2018
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice S.Raveekumar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Rule 2(a)(A) Cenvat Credit Rules…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Towers and PFBs used to support the BTS/antenna are capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Rules.

Yes. Towers and PFBs used to support the BTS/antenna are capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Rules. Both sides accepted that the point stands covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in the assessee's own case, Bharti Airtel, which treated towers and PFBs as goods rather than immovable property and, since they hold the antenna steady at the requisite height, as components/accessories of BTS/antenna falling under Chapter 85. The Court allowed the telecom operators' appeals on that footing.

Headnote

Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Rule 2(a)(A) — Rule 2(l) — Capital goods — Towers and PFBs — Input services — Erection and commissioning — Notification No.3/2011 — Notification No.4/2004 — SEZ — Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Rule 2(a)(A) — Towers and PFBs — Accessories of BTS/antenna — Held: Towers and PFBs are not immovable property but goods, and being components/accessories of BTS/antenna falling under Chapter 85 they are capital goods on which cenvat credit is available; the issue stands covered by Bharti Airtel. (¶3, 4, 6) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Rule 2(l) — Input services — Erection and commissioning of towers — Held further: Once towers and PFBs are not immovable property, services rendered in connection with their erection and commissioning are entitled to cenvat credit, the definition of input services in Rule 2(l) being wide and inclusive. (¶13, 14) Notification No.3/2011 — Rent-a-cab, tour operator, authorized service station — Period 2004 to 2008 — Held further: The Notification does not include rent-a-cab, tour operator and authorized service station, and being dated 01.03.2011 it is inapplicable to a period between 2004 and 2008 even for out-door catering. (¶20, 21) Notification No.4/2004 — SEZ units — Exemption — Held further: The exemption cannot be denied merely because the facility is used outside the SEZ unit. Assessees' appeals allowed; Revenue's appeals dismissed. (¶22, 23)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 3Both Mr.Karthik Sundaram, learned counsel for the assessee and Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department accede to the position that the issue stands covered by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the assessee’s own case in Bharti Airtel v. Commissioner of Central Excise[^1] rendered after considering the dichotomy of views of the Bombay High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [^2] and the Delhi High Court in Vodafone Mobile Services Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi[^3]. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
Paragraph 4After a discussion of the dictionary meaning of the term ‘accessory’ and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors.[^4], this is what the Bench says:
Paragraph 6In light of the aforesaid, CMA Nos.2260 and 2261 of 2018 are allowed answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee.
Acts & Sections
Rule 2(a)(A) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004Rule 2(l) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004Rule 2(k) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is erection and commissioning of towers and PFBs encompassed within the input service definition in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?Does Notification No.3/2011-Central Excise (NT) dated 01.03.2011 include authorized service station, tour operator and rent-a-cab?Can exemption under Notification No.4/2004 be denied merely because the telecom facility is used outside the SEZ unit?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections