Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 395 - AT - Service TaxEligibility to avail Cenvat credit for providing Cellular services - towers and pre-fabricated buildings/shelters - Capital goods - whether the appellants are to be saddled with the demands of reversal of Cenvat credit by invoking extended period or otherwise and whether penalties are to be imposed on them or not - Held that:- High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that The subject items are neither capital goods under Rule 2(a) nor inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Credit Rules and hence CENVAT credit of the duty paid thereon was not admissible to the appellants. When the high courts have already held that towers would become immovable property, the argument which was led by the learned Counsel that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has not considered the definition of immovable property as it is envisaged in the Transfer of Property Act and General Clauses Act, is incorrect and will not carry the case of appellants any further. - appellants therein were providers of storage and warehousing services; immovable property service and business auxiliary service, for which they need to have infrastructure in its place. In the cases in hand, with which we are dealing with are the telecommunication companies providing cellular services, we find that basically all the appellants herein are providers of telecommunication/cellular services and the facility created by them in form of towers and pre-fabricated buildings are for their own use. Predominantly, the towers and pre-fabricated buildings/shelters were utilised by the appellants herein for rendering their own telecom/cellular services. In view of this ratio laid down in the case of Sai Sahmita Storages Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 400 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], SG Navratna [2012 (7) TMI 316 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ] and GTL Infrastruture Ltd., (2014 (9) TMI 647 - CESTAT MUMBAI) may not apply, as the facts in those cases are totally differen than the facts in these bunch of appeals. Be that as it may, we find that as the issue involved in this case is covered by the direct judgement of the jurisdictional High Court, judicial discipline demands that ratio of jurisdictional High Court is to be followed by this Bench. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- It is evident and not in dispute that not only returns were filed periodically but audit was also conducted by the department. Even in the audit through returns were available, issues raised herein were not raised in few cases. In one of the cases Tribunal cannot lose the sight of the vital fact that final audit report during the concerned period did not indicate wrong availment of Cenvat credit on towers and pre-fabricated buildings. The omission which is subsequently alleged therefore, cannot be said to be beyond the department's knowledge. The facts in all these cases clearly show that appellants conduct was bonafide and there was no design to commit any fraud or to evade any duty. - allegation of suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax cannot be sustained. The demands within the limitation period as confirmed are upheld along with interest. Levy of penalty - Held that:- as the issue was of are interpretative nature i.e., as to eligibility of Cenvat credit or otherwise on the towers and the building and had to be settled in the hands of the Hon'ble High Court, the appellants could have entertained a bonafide belief. Hence, all the penalties imposed on all the appellants herein are set aside by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|