9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar] Issue in dispute relates to the eligibility or otherwise of CENVAT Credit on angles, channels and beams etc., used to erect the towers and pre-fabricated 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towers are not directly used for providing output service but are only used as structural support and therefore do not qualify as capital goods. Further the respondent also has denied the credit pertaining 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Vs CCE, Pune-III [2014 (35) STR 865 (Bomb)] (ii) Vodafone India Ltd., Vs CCE, Mumbai-II [2015-TlOL-2098-HC-MUM-ST] We also find that the Larger Bench in M/s Tower Vision India 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la [2016-TIOL-873-CESTAT-CHD], we hold that the penalties imposed on the appellant on these cases will have to be set aside. For the same reason, the demand which is barred by limitation (September, 2007) for an amount of Rs. 35,20,725/- will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. However, demand of Rs. 2,51,47,455/- for the normal period which is not hit by limitation, (for the period 10/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
