https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251012 Cenvat credit was denied on tower and tower parts, prefabricated building and printers because they did not independently satisfy the statutory definitions of capital goods or inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Tower and prefabricated building, once erected, were treated as immovable and not goods falling within the specified capital-goods headings or the inputs definition for output services. The Court also rejected the argument that the entire BTS installation could be treated as a composite capital good. Tower was further held not to be a component, part or accessory of antenna, but only a structural support, so credit could not be claimed on that footing. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251012 Cenvat credit was denied on tower and tower parts, prefabricated building and printers because they did not independently satisfy the statutory definitions of capital goods or inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Tower and prefabricated building, once erected, were treated as immovable and not goods falling within the specified capital-goods headings or the inputs definition for output services. The Court also rejected the argument that the entire BTS installation could be treated as a composite capital good. Tower was further held not to be a component, part or accessory of antenna, but only a structural support, so credit could not be claimed on that footing. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251012