TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Vs CCE, Pune-III [2014 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where on similar inputs, it was held that the subject items are neither capital goods u/r 2(a) nor inputs u/r 2(k) of the Credit Rules - the appellant-assessee will not be eligible to avail the cenvat credit on angles, channels and beams etc. used to erect the impugned towers. Imposition of penalty - Held that: - the issue is interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted buildings on which transmission equipments were installed. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Sh. R. Raghavan submitted that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing Telecommunication Services, and had availed CENVAT Credit of excise duty paid on towers and shelter/pre-fabricated buildings, purchased by them and used for pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining to towers on the ground that the towers are immovable and hence not goods. Credit also denied on the pre-fabricated buildings and towers on the premise that they are not capital goods within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) (A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Ld. Advocate also argued that issue being subject matter of conflicting decisions, extended period of limitation should not have been invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Private Ltd., vs CCE (Adj), Delhi [2016 (42) STR 249 (Tri-LB)] following the above judgments had also held in favour of Revenue. 5. In these circumstances we have no difficulty following the aforesaid decisions and holding that the appellant-assessee will not be eligible to avail the cenvat credit on angles, channels and beams etc. used to erect the impugned towers. 6. However on the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by limitation (September, 2007) for an amount of ₹ 35,20,725/- will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. However, demand of ₹ 2,51,47,455/- for the normal period which is not hit by limitation, (for the period 10/2007 to 09/2008) will sustain and is upheld. Penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 (4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 78 of the Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
