Is erection and commissioning of towers and PFBs encompassed within the input service definition in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice S.Raveekumar
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.
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 accountOne 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India