TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the show cause notices were confirmed vide Orders-in-Original dated 28.07.2006, 30.03.2010, 30.08.2013 & 19.07.2016 confirming the demand of CENVAT credit along with interest while imposing equal penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 or Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as applicable. Hence these appeals. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra. The issue of admissibility of credit pertaining to inputs and capital goods has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant's own case - 2024 (11) TMI 1042- SC. She further submits that the following decisions by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal are in favour of the appellants: * M/s Indus Towers Limited v. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T., Delhi-IV-2020 (6) TMI 493-CESTAT Chandigarh * M/s Indus Towers Limited. V. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T., Delhi-IV -2019 (5) TMI 1988-CESTAT Chandigarh. * Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-Gurgaon v. Bharti Infratel Limited -2019 (2) TMI 1736. * Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Indus Towers Limited, Tower Vision India Private Limited, Bharti Infratel Limited, v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi -201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that BTS is a composite system consisting of the transmitter, receiver, antenna and other equipment, and antenna can be said to be an integral part of BTS. As discussed above, and not disputed by the Revenue, tower is needed to keep the antenna at an appropriate height and keep it stable. Without the tower, it is not possible to hoist the antenna at the requisite height and without it being securely fastened to the tower, antenna cannot be kept firm and steady for proper receipt and transmission of radio signals. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that a mobile tower can be treated to be an accessory of antenna and BTS. Accordingly, since in terms of sub-clause (iii) of Rule 2(a)(A), all components, spares and accessories of such capital goods falling under sub-clause (i) would also be treated as capital goods, a mobile tower can also be treated as "capital good". 11.11.12 We, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Delhi High Court that towers and shelters (PFBs) support the BTS/antenna for effective transmission of mobile signals and thus enhance their efficiency and since these articles are components/accessories of BTS/antenna which are admittedly "capital goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11.12.2 It may be also noted that there must be "use" of such goods to qualify as "inputs". Without stretching too much the meaning of the words "use" and "input", it can be said, without any doubt, that tower and PFBs are used for providing output service by way of inputs. The use of tower and PFB cannot be said to be so remotely connected with the output of service that these goods will go beyond the ordinary meaning of "use". Their usage in providing the output service is not remote but proximate. In fact, without the use of tower and PFB, it is inconceivable that the service provider can provide mobile services effectively. Rather, towers and PFBs are indispensable being accessories of antenna for providing mobile services. In this regard one may refer to the decision in Phelps & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that, '6. We have now to find out what exactly is the meaning of the expression "for use by him in the manufacture of goods for sale". Identical words are used in Section 8(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This court was called upon to find out the scope of that expression in M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "input" has been defined with reference to providing output service, the definition clauses does not explain it so elaborately but merely uses the simple expression i.e. "used for providing any output service". In our view, even if the definition of "input" with reference to output service may not have been explained in an expansive manner as in the case of manufacture of final product under Rule 2(k)(i), the definition of "input" with reference to providing output service under Rule 2(k)(ii) need not be given a restrictive meaning as sought to be done by the CESTAT by holding that tower is not used directly for transmission of signal. In our view since the subject matter is same, i.e., what amounts to "input" though the end use is for two different products, one tangible, in the form of final manufactured product, and one intangible i.e., output service, applying similar tests to determine what amounts to "input" would not be impermissible. 11.12.4 We have also noted that the Bombay High Court had taken the view that it cannot be said that it is impossible to provide the service without the aid of the towers, thus showing non dependency of antenna on tower. In our view, whi....