LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Is erection and commissioning of towers and PFBs encompassed within the input service definition in Rule 2(l) of 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

Erection and commissioning of towers and PFBs is encompassed within the input service definition in Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules.

Yes. Erection and commissioning of towers and PFBs is encompassed within the input service definition in Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules. Credit had been denied only because the towers were treated as immovable property; that premise having gone, credit follows. The Court added that Rule 2(l) is wide and inclusive, and that the Tribunal had twice decided the same issue for the same assessee, adopting the Larger Bench view that the CENVAT chain is not broken for input services.

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 13The reason for denial of the relief is on that ground that the services relate to erection and commissioning of Towers and PFBs that constitute immovable property. In CMA Nos.2260 and 2261 of 2018, we have held that Tower and PFBs are not immovable property and hence, as a consequence, services rendered in connection with the erection and commissioning of the Towers and PFBs would be entitled to cenvat credit.
Paragraph 14That apart, the definition of ‘input services’ under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (in short ‘2004 Rules’) is wide and inclusive and enables obtaining of credit in respect of services used in relation to setting up of a factory. The activities of erection and commissioning are hence encompassed within the scope of the definition of ‘services’.
Paragraph 15Moreover, the same issue had arisen in the case of this assessee, both in the Tribunals at Chennai and Bombay and vide decisions dated 14.07.2025 and 26.08.2025 in Service Tax Appeal Nos.41118 of 2015 and 41740 of 2015, and have been held in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in Vodafone Idea Ltd. V. CST. Mumbai[^5], the relevant portion of which reads thus:
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?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