Page 142 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

100 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
tracks qualified as capital goods and therefore whether Modvat credit was ad-
missible in respect of goods used for constructing railway tracks. Hon’ble Su-
preme Court observed that the railway tracks had been installed by the assessee
within the plant as a part of handling system for raw material and processed ma-
terial. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that “railway track material used
for handling raw materials and process goods” was capital goods and hence the
assessee had rightly claimed Modvat credit in respect of the said item.
2.15 The applicant is also supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spinning and
Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that steel
plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication of chimney for diesel generation
set are “capital goods” for the purpose of Central excise.
Recent Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court squarely supports the
applicant :
2.16 The applicant is squarely supported in its submission by a recent
judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Pipavav
Defense and Offshore Engineering Company Ltd. - (2017) 105 VST 60 (Guj.) wherein
it was held that goods used for construction of “dry dock” and “fit out berth”
which were necessary for the purpose of the ship manufacturing business of the
dealer qualified as “plant and machinery” and therefore input tax credit was
admissible in respect of such goods under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act,
2003.
“Any other civil structures” to be read ejusdem generis the words land and build-
ing :
2.17 It is respectfully submitted that the phrase “any other civil struc-
tures” as appearing in Explanation to Section 17 of the GST Acts is to be read
ejusdem generis to the preceding words being land and building. It is respectfully
submitted that it is well settled that when particular words pertaining to a class,
category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are con-
strued as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. This principle of
interpretation is known as “ejusdem generis”. The preconditions for application of
the said principle were laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar
Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Central Excise - AIR 1972 SC 1863 as follows :
“The ejusdem generis rule strives to reconcile the incompatibility between
specific and general words. This doctrine applies when (i) the statute con-
tains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration
constitute a class or category; (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by
the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration; and (v)
there is no indication of a different legislative intent.”
2.18 Reference is invited to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - AIR 1989 SC 1019 =
1989 (39) E.L.T. 498 (S.C.). Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
provided for certain activities which were deemed to be manufacturing process-
es. One of the clauses read as “in relation to goods comprised in Item No. 19-I of the
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, includes bleaching, mercerising, dyeing,
printing, water-proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other
process or any one or more of these processes.” The question before Hon’ble Court
was the ambit of the phrase “any other process”. Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
under :

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  142