TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inputs nor the same are covered by the definition of capital goods, that the towers being structures fixed to the earth are not even goods – Following Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore [2012 (7) TMI 233 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - towers or their components on which the antenna was mounted were neither the component of antenna and have capital goods nor the same were covered by the definition of inputs and hence would not be eligible for Cenvat credit. - stay granted partly. - Appeal No. 55426 of 2013 - ORDER NO .SO/ 57206 /2013-Cus(Br) - Dated:- 12-3-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Gajendra Maheshwari, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Govind Dixit, DR JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the above mentioned Cenvat credit demand of Rs.2,69,44,687/- was confirmed along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 and besides this, penalties were imposed on the appellant under Section 76, 77 of the Finance Act. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed along with the stay petition. 2. Heard both sides in respect of stay petition. 3. Shri Gajendra Maheshwari, learned advocate for the appellant, pleaded that the towers have to be treated as component of antenna; that antenna have to be installed at a particular height and if the same are installed at lower height, the microwaves shall get obstructed by building or trees; that for transmission of microwave without any obstruc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the stay petition in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore [2012-TIOL-1184-CESTAT-Bang] wherein the Tribunal had ordered pre-deposit of Rs.3 crores and that in view of this, the appellants plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit should not be accepted. 5. We have considered the submissions made from both the sides and perused the records. The main point in dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of components of towers used by them for erection and installation of towers on which antenna is mounted and also in respect of input services used for erection and installation of towers and their repair and maintenance. We find that this issue stands decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
