M/S Idea Cellular Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1676 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1676 Tel
Judgement Date : 14 August, 2025

Telangana High Court

M/S Idea Cellular Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 14 August, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                     AND
           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
            SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

         CEA Nos.38 OF 2019 & CEA No.153 OF 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Ms. Anushka Rastogi, learned counsel representing

Mr. Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan, learned counsel for the

respondent in CEA No.38 of 2019 and appellant in CEA No.153 of

2017, Mr. Bommineni Vivekananda, learned Junior Standing

Counsel representing Ms. K.Rajitha, learned Senior Standing

Counsel for the appellant in CEA No.38 of 2019 and Mr. Dominic

Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for the

respondent in CEA No.153 of 2017. Perused the record.

2. These are two appeals involving the same substantial

question of law.

3. The two appellants in the instant appeals are Telecom

Service Providers. The respondent in CEA No.38 of 2019 is

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., and the appellant in CEA No.153 of 2017 is

M/s Idea Cellular Limited.

4 The question of law involved in these two appeals is whether

the Cenvat Credit on pre-fabricated buildings/shelters/PUF panel

falling under chapter heading 9406, which were used for housing/

storage of generating sets and other components/equipments/spares

etc., is admissible as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The question

of law also was whether Cenvat Credit would be admissible to

channels and beams etc., used for the erection of towers on which

the transmission equipments were installed.

5. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, it has been

brought to the notice of this Bench that an identical issue came up

for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise,

Pune and other batch of civil appeals arising out of different High

Courts vide Civil Appeal Nos.10409-10410 of 2024 and batch of

civil appeals, all of which stood decided vide judgment dated

20.11.2024. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the

question of law which fell for consideration before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the same is as under:

"The core issue involved in this set of appeals is whether the mobile service providers (MSPs) who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) etc. can take the benefit of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "CENVAT Rules") for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them".

It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the findings

given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as would be reflected as

under:

"Having held that the tower and pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) are "goods" and not immovable property and since these goods are used for providing mobile telecommunication services, the inescapable conclusion is that they would also qualify as "inputs"

under Rule 2(k) for the purpose of credit benefits under the CENVAT Rules".

6. In the light of the aforesaid categorical finding by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the

question of law involved in these two appeals also stand squarely

covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view

of the same, the appeal filed by the Revenue i.e., CEA No.38 of

2019 stands rejected answering the question of law in favour of the

assessee and CEA No.153 of 2017 which is an appeal by the

assessee stands allowed in terms of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as above. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall