https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272353 The note addresses two CESTAT questions: first, it supports the Tribunal's power to constitute a Larger Bench, hear a reference arising from difference of opinion, and tag connected appeals for joint disposal, rejecting objections that only a third member could decide the matter. Second, it explains that towers, pre-fabricated shelters and their parts/components, once erected and embedded at site, are treated as immovable property and therefore do not qualify as capital goods or inputs for Cenvat credit. Mere tariff classification does not create credit entitlement without the required nexus with the output service, so credit on such passive infrastructure was held inadmissible. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272353 The note addresses two CESTAT questions: first, it supports the Tribunal's power to constitute a Larger Bench, hear a reference arising from difference of opinion, and tag connected appeals for joint disposal, rejecting objections that only a third member could decide the matter. Second, it explains that towers, pre-fabricated shelters and their parts/components, once erected and embedded at site, are treated as immovable property and therefore do not qualify as capital goods or inputs for Cenvat credit. Mere tariff classification does not create credit entitlement without the required nexus with the output service, so credit on such passive infrastructure was held inadmissible. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272353