M/S.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Cce, Chandigarh

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-000-APP.140-13-14 dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh-I]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the

order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in

any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental

authorities?

__________________________________________________

M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Chandigarh  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Suresh Goyal, CA

Present for the Respondent: Shri M.S. Negi, DR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53275/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh-I. Cenvat Credit taken on various services by the appellant has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that telecom towers/erection of towers are neither capital goods nor input for the appellant.

2. The submissions of the appellant in this appeal are that the disputed services on which cenvat credit taken are covered under definition of input service. Therefore, according to the appellant, the cenvat credit taken is in conformity with the provisions of Cenvat statute, and as such, denial of cenvat credit is not legal and proper.

2. Heard ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

3. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is a service tax assessee, duly registered under the Service Tax statute for providing the telecom services. Installation of telecom towers are for the purpose of providing the output service by the appellant. The fact is not under dispute that the services in question are not confirming to the definition of input service defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the disputed services have been used by the appellant for erection of the telecom towers, which is used for providing the taxable output service, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate to deny the cenvat benefit.

4. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2