Page 116 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

442 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
(d) Dani v. State of Karnataka - 44 STC 276
(e) India Leaf Spring Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1989
175 ITR 639 AP
(f) Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.).
8.5 The appellant also relied on the analogy of certain judicial pro-
nouncements rendered under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit laws, wherein it has
been held that Cenvat credit of inputs/input services used for construction is
admissible.
(a) M/s. Rattha Holding Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chen-
nai - 2018 (9) TMI 1722
(b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakapatnam-II v. M/s. Sai Samhmita
Storages (P) Ltd. - 2011 (2) TMI 400 = 2011 (23) S.T.R. 341 (A.P.) =
2011 (270) E.L.T. 33 (A.P.)
(c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. Ashok Agencies - 2016 (5) TMI
782 = 2016 (41) S.T.R. 647 (Tribunal)
8.6 The appellant submitted that parts, components, accessories come
into existence before the installation of the machinery and credit of taxes paid on
the same cannot be denied even if they become part of the immovable property
after installation of the plant and machinery. They relied on the following judi-
cial pronouncements in support of this stand:
(a) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax v. India Cements Ltd.,
2014 (310) E.L.T. 636 (Mad.)
(b) Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving
Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)
(c) Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, 2011
(270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)
8.7 The appellant also relied on the order dated 17-4-2019 passed by the
High Court of Orissa in the case of Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Chief
Commissioner of CGST & Other (W.P. (C) No. 20463/2018) [2019 (25) G.S.T.L 341
(Ori.)] wherein it was held that the petitioner is allowed to avail input tax credit
on inputs like cement, sand, steel, aluminium, plywood, paint, electrical wires,
lifts & escalators, air-conditioning plant, chillers, electrical equipment, DG sets,
transformers, building automation systems, consultancy services, architectural
services, legal and professional services, engineering services, etc., on the follow-
ing grounds :
(a) Restriction of input tax credit on goods and/or services used in con-
struction of plant or machinery in terms of Section 17(5) of the
CGST Act, 2017 leads to narrow interpretation of statute, which de-
stroys the very object of the statute.
(b) The petitioner had retained the property not on own account but
had let out the property on rent and had remitted applicable GST on
the same. Since the output tax was remitted on such rental income,
the High Court held that restriction of input tax credit on inward
supplies would lead to obscure interpretation of the statute.
8.8 The appellant submitted that the installations are recorded in the
books of account under separate heads as per Indian Accounting Standards
which is sufficient justification that these installations are distinct from the land
and building. Hence the same do not form a part of the exclusion portion of the
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  236