CENVAT credit on towers upheld despite procedural lapses and installation objections; factual eligibility defeated denial.

CENVAT credit was held admissible on towers and their parts and accessories where concurrent factual findings showed the goods were excisable, duty had been paid, and the provider of output service was otherwise entitled to credit on capital goods, inputs, and input services. Credit could not be denied on procedural objections such as absence of Input Service Distributor registration, defects in supporting documents, or the fact that the towers were not installed within the assessee's premises, because those lapses did not defeat substantive eligibility. The dispute was treated as purely factual, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on towers and parts and accessories of towers treated as capital goods or inputs; (ii) Whether credit could be denied for alleged procedural defects, including absence of Input Service Distributor registration, defects in supporting documents, and the place of installation of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on towers and parts and accessories of towers treated as capital goods or inputs.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal recorded concurrent factual findings that towers and their parts and accessories were treated as excisable goods on which central excise duty had been paid, and that credit was available to the provider of output service on duty of excise and service tax paid on capital goods, inputs, and input services. On those facts, the denial proposed in the show-cause notice was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the credit on towers and related items was held admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether credit could be denied for alleged procedural defects, including absence of Input Service Distributor registration, defects in supporting documents, and the place of installation of the goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the finding that the assessee had satisfied the requirements for availing credit and that credit could not be denied merely because of a procedural lapse. It also held that it was not necessary for the towers on which credit was taken to be installed within the assessee's premises, and it found no substance in the department's factual objections.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the proposed denial of credit on procedural and factual grounds was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was held to be purely factual, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the factual findings establish eligibility on the goods and services in question, and a mere procedural lapse does not justify denial of credit absent substantive ineligibility.

---