LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Can exemption under Notification No.4/2004 be denied merely because the telecom facility is used outside the SEZ unit?

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

Exemption under Notification No.4/2004 cannot be denied merely because the telecom facility is used outside the SEZ unit.

No. Exemption under Notification No.4/2004 cannot be denied merely because the telecom facility is used outside the SEZ unit. The Department had no case that the subscribers were outside the SEZ units, and the Tribunal also noted the exemptions in Section 26 and the overriding effect in Section 51 of the SEZ Act. The High Court concurred and answered that question against the Revenue.

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 22As far as the third question is concerned, the Tribunal has, in paragraph 6.2, held the assessee entitled to the exemption sought, in the following terms:
Paragraph 23We concur with the CESTAT in regard to the findings as above. Hence, the third question of law is answered against the revenue. In fine, CMA Nos.2454 and 2455 of 2019 are dismissed.
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
Are towers and PFBs used to support the BTS/antenna capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?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?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections