M/S Vodafone Mobile Services LTD vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chandigarh

` 268 I Vodafone Mo Commissione CORAM: H H Present: M M M M ASHWANI K 1. C by the Hon’b Central Exci Bharti Airtel L “ ( g i u R 2. L raised in this a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG CM-13 STA-21 Date of obile Services Ltd. Vs. er of Central Excise, Chandigarh HON’BLE THE ACTING CHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROH Ms. Krati Singh, Advocate and Ms. Khushbu Sood, Advocate fo Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing C Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate *** KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Or Controversy raised in the presen ble Supreme Court in Bharti ise, Pune, 2024 (132) GSTR 4 Ltd. (supra) reads as under:- “11.12.6 Having held that the (PFBs) are “goods” and not im goods are used for providing mob nescapable conclusion is that th under Rule 2(k) for the purpose o Rules.” Learned counsel for the parties appeal is identical to that of Bha NJAB AND HARYANA GARH 3770-CII-2026 in/and 1-2018 (O&M) f Decision: 12.08.2026 …Appellant …Respondent IEF JUSTICE HIT KAPOOR r the applicant/appellant. Counsel and e for the respondent. ral) nt appeal stands finally adjudic Airtel Ltd. vs. Commissioner 404 (SC). The operative part of tower and pre-fabricated build mmovable property and since th bile telecommunication services, hey would also qualify as “inp of credit benefits under the CEN do not dispute that the controv arti Airtel Ltd. (supra). In that v cated r of f the dings hese , the uts” NVAT versy view RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.14 16:03 I attest the accuracy and