Cenvat credit on embedded towers and shelters denied as immovable property, while Larger Bench jurisdiction and tagged appeals were upheld.

The note addresses two CESTAT questions: first, it supports the Tribunal's power to constitute a Larger Bench, hear a reference arising from difference of opinion, and tag connected appeals for joint disposal, rejecting objections that only a third member could decide the matter. Second, it explains that towers, pre-fabricated shelters and their parts/components, once erected and embedded at site, are treated as immovable property and therefore do not qualify as capital goods or inputs for Cenvat credit. Mere tariff classification does not create credit entitlement without the required nexus with the output service, so credit on such passive infrastructure was held inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Larger Bench could hear the appeals on a difference of opinion and tag connected appeals for joint disposal; (ii) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on towers, pre-fabricated shelters, and their parts/components to passive infrastructure providers rendering business auxiliary service or business support service.

Issue (i): Whether a Larger Bench could hear the appeals on a difference of opinion and tag connected appeals for joint disposal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowering constitution of Benches and reference of matters, coupled with the Tribunal's administrative authority to constitute an appropriate Bench and hear connected appeals together, was held to support the course adopted. The preliminary objections that a third member alone could resolve the difference of opinion and that unrelated appeals could not be tagged were rejected.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections were rejected and the Larger Bench was held competent to hear the referred and tagged matters.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on towers, pre-fabricated shelters, and their parts/components to passive infrastructure providers rendering business auxiliary service or business support service.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the goods in question, once erected and embedded at site, became immovable property and ceased to qualify as capital goods or inputs for Cenvat purposes. It followed the binding High Court rulings that towers and shelters are immovable and non-excisable, and held that their classification under a tariff chapter by itself did not create credit eligibility. The Tribunal further held that there was insufficient nexus between the duty-paid materials and the output service so as to satisfy the definition of inputs or capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was held not admissible on towers, pre-fabricated shelters, or their parts/components, and the issue was decided against the assessees and in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The referred legal questions were answered against the assessees, the Revenue's objections to the Bench composition failed, and the credit claims on the impugned tower and shelter structures were negatived; the connected matters required further merits adjudication by the appropriate Division Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are permanently embedded and function as immovable property do not qualify as capital goods or inputs for Cenvat credit, and mere tariff classification does not create credit entitlement absent the statutory nexus with the output service.

---