CENVAT credit allowed on towers and BTS materials after tribunal sets aside denial orders under Rule 2(k)

CESTAT Mumbai allowed appeals challenging denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods including towers, shelters, and materials for Base Transceiver Stations. The tribunal relied on SC precedent in Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, which held that towers and pre-fabricated buildings qualify as "goods" rather than immovable property and constitute "inputs" eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(k). Since earlier show cause notices for identical grounds were invalidated by the SC judgment, the confirmed demands against appellants could not be sustained. The impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the present appeals are:

(a) Whether the appellants, engaged in providing telecommunication services, are entitled to avail CENVAT credit on capital goods such as towers, shelters, and other materials procured for installation of Base Transceiver Stations (BTS) under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;

(b) Whether the towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs), affixed at the site for telecommunication purposes, qualify as "goods" or immovable property for the purpose of availing CENVAT credit;

(c) Whether the denial of CENVAT credit on such capital goods by the department through Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the disputed period, is legally sustainable;

(d) The applicability and interpretation of relevant provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, particularly Rules 2(a), 2(k), 3(1), and 3(4), in the context of the goods used for telecommunication services;

(e) The effect of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.11.2024, which set aside earlier adverse orders of the Bombay High Court and the Tribunal relating to the same issue for an earlier period, on the present disputes;

(f) Whether the subsequent SCNs issued for the period April 2012 to March 2015, containing identical grounds as the earlier SCNs, can be sustained in view of the Supreme Court's ruling.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Entitlement to CENVAT credit on capital goods (towers, shelters, PFBs) and classification as goods or immovable property

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 define "capital goods" under Rule 2(a) and "inputs" under Rule 2(k). Rule 3(1) allows a provider of taxable service to take credit on duties paid on inputs or capital goods used in providing output services. The interpretation of whether towers and PFBs are goods or immovable property is critical, as CENVAT credit is not available on immovable property.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.11.2024 (2024-VIL-49-SC-CE) is the pivotal precedent, which examined the nature of towers and PFBs in the context of telecommunication services.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court held that towers affixed to the earth or buildings by nuts and bolts do not satisfy the "permanency test" characteristic of immovable property. The towers can be dismantled, moved, and reassembled without altering their character, negating the notion of permanent assimilation with the land or building. The attachment serves only to stabilize the tower for effective functioning of the antenna, not to confer permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land or building.

Similarly, prefabricated buildings (PFBs) were treated likewise. The Court further held that these items qualify as "goods" and not immovable property.

Key evidence and findings: The physical nature of the towers and PFBs, their mode of attachment, and their mobility were crucial factual elements. The Court emphasized that the ability to dismantle and relocate the towers negated the immovability characteristic.

Application of law to facts: Since the towers and PFBs are "goods" and used in providing telecommunication services, they qualify as "inputs" under Rule 2(k). Consequently, the appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT credit on duties paid on these goods under Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Treatment of competing arguments: The department argued that the towers and shelters are immovable property and hence not eligible for CENVAT credit. The Court rejected this by applying the permanency test and focusing on the functional and physical attributes of the towers and PFBs.

Conclusions: The towers and prefabricated buildings are "goods" and "inputs" eligible for CENVAT credit. The appellants' claim to credit on such capital goods is legally sustainable.

Issue (c), (e), and (f): Validity of denial of CENVAT credit through SCNs and effect of Supreme Court judgment on earlier and subsequent proceedings

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The department issued SCNs under Section 73(1) and Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, seeking to deny CENVAT credit for periods April 2005 to March 2011 and April 2012 to March 2015 respectively. Earlier adjudication and appellate orders had denied credit, which were upheld by the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court.

The Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.11.2024 set aside the Bombay High Court's orders and allowed the civil appeals filed by the appellants and others on the same issue for the earlier period.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that since the Supreme Court has overruled the earlier adverse decisions, the orders passed by the lower authorities and courts denying credit for the earlier period cannot be sustained. The subsequent SCNs issued for the later period, containing identical grounds and based on the same legal position, are also untenable.

Key evidence and findings: The identical nature of the grounds in the SCNs for the two periods and the binding effect of the Supreme Court's ruling on the legal question were determinative.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of res judicata and the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court to conclude that the denial of CENVAT credit for the disputed period is not sustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The department's reliance on earlier orders and SCNs was rejected in light of the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling. The Tribunal emphasized that the department cannot take a contrary stand for a subsequent period based on identical grounds.

Conclusions: The adjudged demands confirmed against the appellants for the period April 2012 to March 2015, based on denial of CENVAT credit on the disputed goods, cannot be sustained and are set aside.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment, held:

"The tower which is affixed to the earth and thus appears to be immovable, can be dismantled from the existing site and re-assembled without causing any change in its character. It can be moved to any other place and also sold in the market. These attributes negate the permanency test, which is a characteristic of immovable property. The tower when fixed to the earth or the building or the civil foundation by nuts and bolts does not get assimilated with the earth or building permanently. Such affixing is only for the purpose of maintaining stability of the tower and keep it wobble free so that the antenna which is hoisted on it can receive and transmit the electromagnetic signals effectively and without any disturbance. Affixing of the tower to the earth or building is not for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land or building, but to make it stable for effective functioning of the antenna for seamless rendering of mobile services by the service provider to the consumers/subscribers. Same is the case with pre fabricated buildings (PFB)."

"Having held that the tower and pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) are 'goods' and not immovable property and since these goods are used for providing mobile telecommunication services, the inescapable conclusion is that they would also qualify as 'inputs' under Rule 2(k) for the purpose of credit benefits under the CENVAT Rules."

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders confirming denial of CENVAT credit were without merit and set them aside, allowing the appeals.

---