LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Does Notification No.3/2011-Central Excise (NT) dated 01.03.2011 include authorized service station, tour operator and rent-a-cab?

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

Notification No.3/2011 dated 01.03.2011 does not include authorized service station, tour operator and rent-a-cab.

No. Notification No.3/2011 dated 01.03.2011 does not include authorized service station, tour operator and rent-a-cab. The Revenue did not dispute eligibility to credit on these items but sought a reduction for personal use or consumption by relying on the Notification. The Court held that invocation erroneous, and further that a Notification of 01.03.2011 could not govern a period between 2004 and 2008, even for out-door catering.

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 20For this purpose, revenue relies on Notification No.3/2011-Central Excise (NT) issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance dated 01.03.2011, by virtue of which, it is incumbent on the assessee to establish that the services in relation to out-door catering have not been used for personal use or consumption by an employee. The Notification does not include services of authorized service station, tour operator and rent-a-cab and hence the invocation of the Notification to these services is erroneous.
Paragraph 21That apart, the Notification is dated 01.03.2011, whereas, the period in question is between 2004 and 2008 and hence it is inapplicable even in the case of out-door catering. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered 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
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?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