Page 136 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

462 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
tract agreement with M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited for lighting of
plant road, boundary and watchtower. It includes various inputs
and input services like design and engineering supply of plant and
equipment and erection of such plant and equipment including
steel, lighting tubular poles, fittings, aviation lamps, switchbox,
pipes, for laying the cables.
To serve the said plant and enable NMDC for round the clock man-
ufacturing operations, lighting is indispensible and in this regard
NMDC has awarded the project of lighting of plant road, boundary,
and watchtower (Package 33) to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited.
(II) M/s. NMDC had applied for advance ruling before the AAR,
Chhattisgarh on the following issues :
Eligibility to take credit of taxes paid on the following :
(i) Design and engineering of lighting for plant, road, boundary
wall and watchtower.
(ii) Supply of plant and equipment for lighting of plant road,
boundary wall and watchtower.
(iii) Erection of plant and equipment for lighting of plant road,
boundary wall and watchtower.
On all of the above questions, the AAR has ruled that “the applicant
is not entitled for input tax credit on the inward supplies for the
said activities of design & engineering, supply of plant and equip-
ment and erection of plant and equipment for lighting of plant road,
boundary and watchtower in view of exclusions stipulated under
Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.”
(III) The Appellant preferred an appeal on all of the above question as
mentioned in para (II) before the Appellate Authority for Advance
Ruling in Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.).
3. Contention of the Appellant :
(a) The Appellant prays that the following questions have to be ad-
dressed by the Hon’ble Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling
(hereinafter ‘AAAR’) :-
(1) Whether the impugned order is right in holding that the
items in question merit treatment as a civil struc-
ture/immovable property and not as “plant and machinery”?
(2) Whether the impugned order fails to appreciate the expres-
sion “plant and machinery” in the explanation in Section 17 of
the CGST Act, 2017 without considering the meaning of
‘equipment’, ‘apparatus’ and ‘machinery’ mentioned therein?
(3) Whether Flood Light Fittings, Transformers and other electri-
cal appliances shall be regarded as ‘plant & machinery’ as
they meet the test of apparatus, equipment or machinery?
(4) If so, the tubular poles, lamp post and the foundation re-
quired to host the above will be regarded as ‘foundation or
structural support of plant and machinery’ and falls in the in-
clusive part of the definition and eligible for input credit?
(5) Whether the AAR erred in relying on the Bombay High
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  136