Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No.E/2832 & 2834/06 & E/574 & 575/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 188/24/V/2006/COMMR/RH, dt. 27.02.2006, OIO No. 181-182/20-21/V/2006/COMMR/RH, dt. 27.02.2006, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V and OIA No. AT/20/RGD/2007 dt. 5.2.2007 and OIA No. AT/219/RGD/2007 dt. 2.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-II ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V :
Appellant VS M/s. Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Tata Teleservices(Maharashtra) Ltd. M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. M/s. Bharati Cellular Ltd. :
Respondent Appearance Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate and Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for respondents CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 08/11/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/12/2016 ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair The issue involved in this appeal is that the whether erection/installation of transmission tower at site is liable to excise duty or otherwise. Both the lower authorities have dropped the proceedings on the basis of various judgments on the identical issue passed by this Tribunal vide order No. A/1692-1704/WZB/2005/C-III dated 8.6.2005/9.9.2005 in the cases of BPL Mobile Communication Ltd., Tata Teleservices, Bharti Cellular Ltd., Hutchison Max Telecommunications Ltd.
2. Heard both sides.
3. We find that the identical issue has already been decided in the case of various identically placed assessees under the same set of facts as per the Tribunals order cited supra. It is also observed that the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-IV vs. Hutchison Max Telecom P. Ltd. 2008 (224) ELT 191 (Bom.), has upheld the order of the Tribunal.
4. In view of the decision of the Tribunal which was upheld by the Honble High Court, the Revenues appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed.
(Pronounced in court on 20/12/2016 )
(Raju)
Member (Technical)
(Ramesh Nair)
Member (Judicial)
SM.
3
Appeal No.E/2832 & 2834/06 &
E/574 & 575/07