2017 (8) TMI 1738 - HC - Central Excise

Availment of CENVAT Credit - duty paid on towers (in CKD/SKD form), parts of towers, shelters / prefabricated buildings purchased by them and used for providing output service - HELD THAT - The controversy raised in these Appeals and the questions of law are covered by our judgment in the case of VODAFONE INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI II 2015 (9) TMI 583 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that 'Goods are neither capital goods' as defined in rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and nor do they fall within the definition of input' as defined in rule 2(k) thereof. This Court has further held that in any event the towers and parts thereof are in the nature of immovable property and are non-marketable and non-excisable and therefore, they cannot be classified as inputs' so as to fall within the definition of rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.' Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed.

Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal based on the judgment in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II [2015 (324) E.L.T. 434 (Bom.)]. Appellant represented by Mr. J.H. Motwani and Mr. Vikramrath S. Chand, Respondent represented by Ms. P.S. Cardoza and Joel Carlos.