Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the impugned order disallowing CENVAT credit taken on input services used in BTS (Base Transceiver Station) Towers/Shelters. The Larger Bench observed that the decision in Bharti Airtel case was limited to 'input' as a source of credit and is not relevant for the dispute over entitlement of 'input service' as credit. There is no break in the CENVAT credit chain insofar as 'input service' is concerned. The Larger Bench held that various Benches of the Tribunal had allowed CENVAT credit on input services used for commissioning and erection of telecom towers without examining the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Bharti Airtel decision. The Larger Bench clarified that the Bharti Airtel decision did not make any distinction between inputs and input services.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the impugned order disallowing CENVAT credit taken on input services used in BTS (Base Transceiver Station) Towers/Shelters. The Larger Bench observed that the decision in Bharti Airtel case was limited to 'input' as a source of credit and is not relevant for the dispute over entitlement of 'input service' as credit. There is no break in the CENVAT credit chain insofar as 'input service' is concerned. The Larger Bench held that various Benches of the Tribunal had allowed CENVAT credit on input services used for commissioning and erection of telecom towers without examining the definition of 'input service' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Bharti Airtel decision. The Larger Bench clarified that the Bharti Airtel decision did not make any distinction between inputs and input services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
