HC
rejects Bharti Airtel’s appeal, Mobile towers / prefabricated building
structure (PFB) neither ‘capital goods’ under Rule 2(a) nor ‘inputs’
under Rule
2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR); Towers / PFB not components,
spares and accessories of goods falling under any chapter headings (CH)
of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA) specified in definition of capital
goods; Rejects assessee’s contention that Base
Transreceiver Station (BTS) a single integrated system consisting of
tower, antennas, PFB etc. classifiable under CH 85.25 of CETA; Further,
rejects assessee’s contention that in CKD or SKD condition tower and
parts thereof would fall under CH 7308; CH 7308
not specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) of rule 2 (a)(A) of CCR;
Further, Towers / PFB not used for provision of telecommunication
service, only goods specified in Rule 2(a)(A) of CCR used for providing
output service can qualify as ‘capital goods’; Assessee’s
reference to input definition as contained under clause (i) of Rule 2(k)
irrelevant as same pertains to goods used in relation to final product
manufacturing or any other purpose within factory of production; Towers
and parts are in nature of immovable goods
and are non-marketable and non-excisable, hence cannot be classifiable
as inputs; Further, holds that it would be misconceived and absurd to
accept that tower is a part of antenna; Towers are structures fastened
to earth on which antennas are installed, hence
cannot be considered as antenna’s accessory / part : Bombay HC
