TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/2004 to 31/03/2006, the appellant availed Cenvat Credit on tower and tower materials, which were used by the appellant for providing telecommunication service. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing to deny Cenvat Credit and to recover the same along with interest and penalties, vide show cause notice dated 14/02/2008. The said proposals have been confirmed vide the impugned order against which the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. In this connection we heard Shri Narender Singhvi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Sanjay Jain, Ld DR for the Revenue. 3. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant are summarized below:- i. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the Cenvat Credit on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority in para 26 of the impugned order in which he has recorded that the details of the documents on the strength of which credit has been taken is not reflected in the ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus. & C. EX., Ghaziabad V/s Rathi Steels & Power Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 200 (All.) in which the Hon'ble High Court has decided, in similar situation that the Revenue will be entitled to raise the demand under extended period of limitation. Finally, he submitted that the impugned order may be upheld. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of record we note that the issue involved in the present case is the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Vodafone India Limited, its earlier decision in Bharti Airtel Limited on a premise that its earlier decision might have been incongruous with the ratio of the Apex Court's decision in Solid & Correct Engineering Works, it is clearly beyond the province of this Tribunal to embark upon such an exercise, on any grounds, including the per incuriam principle. 42. On the above analysis, we conclude that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgments in Bharti Airtel Limited and Vodafone India Limited, which are directly on the issue of the character of towers and shelters and parts, and held to be immovable property, constitute the binding law, insofar as we are concerned. Since the provision of towers and shelters as infrastructure used in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by limitation or otherwise. It is the case of Revenue that the Respondent had not disclosed the details of the inputs and capital goods in their periodic returns resulting in suppression of facts and hence extended period of limitation is applicable to the facts of the present case. But we note that the issue of admissibility of Cenvat Credit was in dispute for a considerable period of time. There were conflicting decisions on the issue. The Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. was held that such Cenvat Credit was not admissible. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Special Economic Zone held that the Cenvat Credit was admissible. Hence, during the relevant period the dispute was the subjec....