Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-11-20 allowed

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: 2 — B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

In Brief

This case resolves a significant dispute on whether mobile service providers can claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs). The Supreme Court held that such providers are entitled to claim this credit. The Court found that towers and PFBs are movable property (not immovable) since they can be dismantled and relocated without damage. Although not directly listed in the CENVAT Rules, these items qualify as capital goods and inputs because they are essential accessories of antennas and BTS equipment (which are capital goods) used for providing mobile services. The Court rejected the Revenue's narrow interpretation, emphasizing that credit eligibility is assessed when goods are received, not after they become affixed to structures. The judgment overrules conflicting Bombay High Court decisions and affirms the Delhi High Court's broader approach.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Excise Duty CENVAT Credit Telecommunications Capital Goods Inputs Movable Property Immovable Property Central Excise Act Service Tax

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login