News Update

CPI gets Rs 11 Cr tax notice for using old PAN numberGST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCFATP hand-wrings over slow regulation of crypto by member-countriesGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Training Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
ST - CENVAT credit is admissible on towers and the cabins used by appellant as Passive Telecom Infrastructure for providing output service namely 'Business Auxiliary Service': CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 17, 2014: THE appellant does the following activity:

(i) Planning for providing 'Passive Telecom Infrastructure' by its installation at various sites to be used by the Cellular Telecom Operators, which could be shared by two or more Operators, while the appellant was to operate and maintain the 'Passive Telecom Infrastructure' and provide committed uptime in excess of 99% to the Operators.

(ii) In this proposed business plan of the Appellant, multiple Cellular Telecom Operators then could share the said 'Passive Telecom Infrastructure' by putting their antennas and other equipment, to send and receive electronic signals for their Cellular Telephony Services.

(iii) The proposed revenue model for appellant comprised of:

(a) Provisioning of charges for providing the 'Passive Telecom Infrastructure' to the Cellular Operators for enabling them to provide their 'Cellular Telephony Services', and

(b) Operations and Maintenance Fees for operating and maintaining the said Passive Telecom Infrastructure.

The appellants sought clarification from the department vide letter dt. 22.8.2005 as to whether the said activity of Passive Telecom Infrastructure comprising of tower/masts/pole, shelter, battery banks, DG Sets etc. attracts service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. It was informed vide letter dt.20.9.2005 that appellants are liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'.

After conducting audit in June 2009, the Department objected to availment of CENVAT Credit on parts of Towers, BTS Cabins etc.

Following SCNs were issued to the appellant:

S.No

SCN No. & date

Amount of demand

Period of demand

Issue involved

1.

V/ST/Dn.Bel/IAD/GTL/Infra/2009/775 dated 22.10.2011

Rs.69,19,02,601/-

2006-07 to 2010-11

Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on Towers/parts etc.

2.

V/Dn.V/Bel/AD/GTL/Infra/2009 dated 12.10.2012

Rs.67,25,973/-

2011-12

Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on Towers/parts etc.

3.

V/St.Dn-V/Gr-VI/CERA/GTL/Infra/1471 dated 12.03.2013

Rs.48,58,069/-

August 08 to August'09

Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on Capital Goods used in Jammu & Kashmir

 

Total

Rs.70,34,86,643/-

   

The adjudicating authority relied on the decisions in BharatiAirtel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2012-TIOL-209-CESTAT-MUM, Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai-IV Vs. Hutchison Max Telecom P. Ltd. 2008-TIOL-1509-CESTAT-DEL and Vandana Global Ltd. V. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur 2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB and denied the credit along with imposition of penalties and interest.

After hearing the submissions made by both sides, the Bench observed -

++ Rule 2(k)(i) deals with manufacturing activity. Admittedly, the appellants are providing output service, therefore, Rule 2k(ii) ibid is relevant to the facts of the case in hand, wherein it has been said that “all goods, except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil, motor spirit, commonly known as petrol and motor vehicles, used for providing any output service”. The adjudicating authority has heavily relied on Explanation 2 to the said Rules as same has been discussed by the Tribunal in the case of BharatiAirtel Ltd. (supra). In fact, the explanation also clarified that inputs includes goods used in manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. But in the case in hand, the appellant is a service provider. Therefore, the said explanation has no relevance to the facts of this case. As per Rule 2 (k)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 all goods are entitled for CENVAT Credit which are used for providing any output service.

++ In this case nowhere it is disputed by any of the parties that the tower/BTS cabins were not used by the appellant for providing service namely 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Therefore, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. These facts have not been appreciated by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority heavily relied on the definition of inputs as per Rule 2(k) (i) and Explanation-II to the said Rule.

++ The adjudicating authority has heavily relied upon the decision of BharatiAirtel Ltd. (supra); in the said case the facts are totally different to the facts of the case in hand. In fact in that case appellant was engaged in providing cellular telephone service and as per Board Circular No. 137/315/2007 CX-4 dt. 26.2.2008, it is clarified that no CENVAT Credit on towers and BTS cabin is permissible for Cellular Phone Service Provider. In the instant case, the towers and the cabins are used by the appellant as Passive Telecom Infrastructure for providing output service namely ‘Business Auxiliary Service' as declared by the appellant to the department in 2005 and agreed to by the department in their reply dt.20.9.2005.

++ In these circumstances, the appellants are entitled for input service credit on towers and cabin, which have been used by the appellant for providing output service under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service'.

Limitation:

As nothing has been suppressed by the appellant and they sought clarification about the liability before providing said service, therefore, demand of extended period of limitation is also not sustainable. In the 3 rd show cause notice CENVAT Credit has been denied to the appellant on the capital goods used in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The appellant made an entry in their books for availment of CENVAT Credit on the goods used in Jammu & Kashmir, but on pointing out, they immediately reversed the said credit without utilizing the same. Therefore, they are not entitled to pay interest as per the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-799-HC-KAR-CX.

In fine, the order-in-original was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2014-TIOL-1768-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023