Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III in Central Excise Appeal No. 73 of 2012 and 119 of 2012 (reported as 2014-TIOL-1452-HC-MUM-ST) – reg.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise and Customs New Delhi, the 11th November, 2014 INSTRUCTION To 1. All Principal Chief Commissioners, 2. All Chief Commissioners and Directors General, 3. CDR, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 4. All Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Customs/Central Excise/Service Tax/ All Commissioners (AR)/ Commissioners, Directorate of Legal Affairs. 5. All Commissioners....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....revenue. While relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills vs CCE Delhi, (2011(270)ELT 465) = 2011-TIOL-73-SC-CX, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, inter-alia, observed as under: "It would be misconceived and absurd to accept that tower is a part of antenna. An accessory or a part of any goods would necessarily mean such accessory or part which would....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the duty paid. As observed hereinabove a service provider like the appellant can avail of the credit of the duty paid only if the goods fall within the ambit of the definition of capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Credit Rules. The contention of the appellant that they are entitled for the credit of the duty paid towers and PFB and printers is defeated by the very wording of the ....