TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns denial of Cenvat Credit for essential business services</h1> <h3>M/s. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut</h3> M/s. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - TMI Issues Involved:1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Construction Service.2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Clearing and Forwarding Service.3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Real Estate Service.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Construction Service:The Commissioner denied Cenvat Credit on construction service, reasoning that:- The service provider’s bills did not mention the service category under the Finance Act, 1994.- There was no nexus between the service and telecommunication service.- The equipment could function without such structures.- The service did not fall under the definition of 'input service' as per Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules.The Appellant argued that the construction services were essential for setting up the infrastructure for telecommunication towers, which are integral to providing telecommunication services. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, noting that construction services are used for setting up the premises of the service provider and therefore qualify as 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules. This view was supported by previous decisions in Vodafone Essar South Ltd. and other related cases, which held that erection and construction of telecommunication towers are essential requirements for telecommunication service and thus qualify as input services.2. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Clearing and Forwarding Service:The Commissioner denied credit on clearing and forwarding service, stating:- The correct classification should be 'Customs House Agent Service.'- There was no nexus with telecommunication service.The Appellant contended that the service included obtaining customs clearance for imported goods like hardware and software essential for the Base Station Controller (BSC) and optical fibre cables, which are integral to telecommunication services. The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument, highlighting that clearing and forwarding services are necessary for procuring inputs for telecommunication services. This view was supported by the decision in Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T. & Cus., Bangalore-II Versus Nash Industries, which recognized the broad scope of 'input service' and its relevance to manufacturing or business activities.3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Real Estate Service:The Commissioner denied credit on real estate service, citing:- Incorrect nomenclature used for the taxable service.- No nexus with the provision of telecommunication service.The Appellant argued that the service was used for procuring plots for constructing shops, which is related to the business activities of the Appellant. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the service was used in relation to the business and thus qualifies as an input service. This view was supported by the decision in Delta Energy Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Delhi-III, which held that services related to the business of the Appellant are covered by the definition of input services.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on construction service, clearing and forwarding service, and real estate service. The order passed by the Commissioner denying Cenvat Credit for these services was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
