TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
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
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of 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/ C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise, Pune III in Central Excise Appeal No. 73 of 2012 and 119 of 2012 (reported as 2014-TIOL-1452-HC-MUM-ST) - reg. Attention is invited to the 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), wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led and hence cannot be considered to be an accessory or part of the antenna. The position in this regard stands fortified from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Saraswati Sugar Mills vs CCE Delhi, (2011 (270) ELT 465) = 2011-TIOL-73-SC-CX". From the definition of the term 'input' as defined in 2 (k) of the Credit rules it is clear that the Appellant is a service provider and not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as to fall within the definition of Rule 2(k) of the credit rules. We clarify that we are not deciding any wider question but restricting our conclusion to the facts and circumstances which have fell for our consideration in these appeals. 34. We therefore find no infirmity or illegality in the findings as recorded by the tribunal in holding that the subject items are neither capital goods un....