Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered the Revenue’s appeal against the CESTAT order dated 18.04.2022 concerning the assessee’s entitlement to CENVAT credit on towers, doors, racks, fall arrestor systems, insulation material and other items, refund of reversed CENVAT credit, and related issues.
The Revenue had raised questions regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit under Rules 2(k) and 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, entitlement to refund of credit reversed under protest, the Tribunal’s distinction of earlier Bombay High Court judgments, and whether telecom towers constituted immovable property.
During the hearing, counsel for the Revenue submitted that although the Bombay High Court had earlier taken a view in favour of the Revenue, the Supreme Court in Bharat Airtel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, (2024) 19 SCC 1 had decided the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. On instructions, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. The above Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 18th April 2022 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
