CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 50997 of 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. CHD-CEX-001-COM-94-2014 dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh]

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd ……Appellant Hari Niwas Khalini, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh- 171002 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods & Service ……Respondent Tax, Shimla Ground & First Floor, Commercial Parking Complex, Chotta Shimla, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh- 171002 APPEARANCE:

Ms. Krati Singh and Shri Monarch Mittal, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Anurag Kumar and Ms. Amita Gupta, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60009/2026 DATE OF HEARING/DECISION: 08.01.2026 P. ANJANI KUMAR:

M/s BSNL, the appellants, have been issued a show cause notice dated 08.08.2013 demanding CENVAT credit of Rs.57,96,552/- for the reason that the appellants have availed wrongful credit on the towers, installed by them for provision of telecommunication service, alleging that the same are neither capital goods nor inputs; credit was also sought to be denied for the reason that the appellants have taken credit on the basis of a document, which is not a document prescribed under Rule 9, supplied by their Input Service Distributor (ISD). The proposals in the show cause notice have been confirmed by impugned order dated 30.12.2014.

2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the issue is no longer res integra; the issue of admissibility of credit of service tax, of inputs/ input services used in installation of towers and pre-fabricated buildings, has been held to be admissible by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bharti Airtel & Other - 2025 (391) ELT 3. She also submits that the issue of admissibility of credit on the documents supplied by the ISD has been settled by this very Bench in the case of appellant’s themselves vide Final Order No.60015/2024 dated 12.01.2024. She also submits that extended period cannot be invoked. She further relies on the following cases:

3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that both the issues raised as above has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra). Hon’ble Court observed as follows:

11.12.5 What we have noted also is that the CESTAT rejected the plea of the Assessee that towers and parts thereof are inputs under Rule 2(k) by observing that the towers are admittedly immovable structures and hence ipso facto non-marketable and non-excisable and these do not lead to manufacture of goods and that towers and PFBs certainly are not used for providing mobile services. By relying on Explanation-2 to Rule 2(k) which provides that input includes goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer, the CESTAT held that these items are not inputs. However, in our view, invoking Explanation-2 is neither appropriate nor necessary as sub-clause (ii) of Rule 2(k) itself clearly provides that “input” means 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. Even though tower and the PFBs are not electrical items/equipment in the sense that these do not transmit signals, yet these are indispensable for the effective functioning of antenna by which the radio signals are received and transmitted and accordingly, used for providing the mobile telephonic services to the subscribers. Thus, towers and PFBs, though are not electrical equipment for transmission of signals, yet these are used for transmission of signal by the antennas. Therefore, there can be no denying of the fact that there is a close