Page 248 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

494 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
shows that the structure is attached to the earth with the help of civil work. The
photographs indicate the magnitude of the work done. Further foundations in
cement concrete, cement concrete walls as well as cement concrete structures are
constructed during the execution of the project. The mode of annexation shows
that the groundwork, being the necessary foundation, is an important part of the
project. The object of annexation, as said earlier, cannot be to make it movable
from one place to the other. It simply cannot be equated to the Asphalt mix (the
issue in Solid & Concrete Engg case) which was intended to be moved from one
place to other. Hence considering the scope of the work and the facts revealed by
the photographs, it can be very well said that completion of the installation, erec-
tion of the total project is resulting into immovable property. Hence the total pro-
ject assigned to the appellant is nothing but composite supply of works contract
as envisaged u/s. 2(119) of GST Act.
54. We shall refer to certain judgments in this regard. The first judg-
ment is the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. T.T.G. Industries Ltd. v.
Collector of Central Excise, ... on 7 May, 2004 Appeal (Civil) 10911 of 1996 [2004
(167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)]. The contract here was for the design, supply, supervision
of erection and commissioning of four sets of Hydraulic Mudguns and Tap Hole
Drilling Machines required for blast furnace and the issue was whether the same
is immoveable property. The Apex Court observed -
.. “Keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgments noticed
above, and having regard to the facts of this case, we have no doubt in our
mind that the mudguns and the drilling machines erected at site by the ap-
pellant on a specially made concrete platform at a level of 25 feet above the
ground on a base plate secured to the concrete platform, brought into exist-
ence not excisable goods but immovable property which could not be shift-
ed without first dismantling it and then re-erecting it at another site. We
have earlier noticed the processes involved and the manner in which the
equipment were assembled and erected. We have also noticed the volume
of the machines concerned and their weight. Taking all these facts into con-
sideration and having regard to the nature of structure erected for basing
these machines, we are satisfied that the judicial member of the CEGAT
was right in reaching the conclusion that what ultimately emerged as a re-
sult of processes undertaken and erections done cannot be described as
“goods” within the meaning of the Excise Act and exigible to excise duty.”
In the above case, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the various com-
ponents of the Mudguns and the Drilling machines are mounted piece by piece
on a metal frame, and the components are lifted by a crane and landed on a cast
house floor 25 feet high. The volume and weight of these machines are such that
there is nothing like assembling them at ground level and then lifting them to a
height of 25 feet for taking to the case house floor and to the platform over which
it is mounted and erected. It observed that the machines cannot be lifted in an
assembled condition and after taking note of these facts, it concluded that the
same is immoveable property.
The Court further held that it cannot be disputed that such Drilling Ma-
chine and Mudguns are not equipment which are usually shifted one place to
another nor it is practicable to shift them frequently.
55. The Court also referred to its own judgments in the case of Quality
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  248