Page 141 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : P.K. MAHAPATRA 467
Apparatus is a compound instrument designed to carry out a spe-
cific function or for a particular use. I.C.B. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1997 (95)
E.L.T. 239 (T).”
(o) The Appellant encloses herewith the interpretation of the expres-
sion ‘apparatus’, ‘equipment’, ‘machinery’ given as a compendium
in various dictionaries. In terms of the above definition, it is clear
that the railway siding in question having a particular function or
intended for a specific use of transport of materials can get rightly
covered under the definition of “plant and machinery”.
(p) That, lighting of plant road comprises of equipment like street
poles, fittings, aviation lamps, switch box, pipes for laying the ca-
bles. Therefore, lighting of plant road, boundary & watchtower will
qualify as an apparatus or an equipment.
(q) That, in terms of the above definition, it is clear that lighting of plant
road & watchtower is a group of instruments, tools, materials etc.,
having a particular function or intended for a specific use for light-
ing at the Plant. Therefore, the same rightly gets covered under the
definition of plant and machinery.
(r) That, the items in question definitely do not qualify as
land/building. The exclusion is for land, building or any other civil
structure. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, it needs to be
understood that the phrase “any other civil structures” has to be
read in conjunction with land and building. Any civil structure in
the nature of land and building will ordinarily be a place from
where the business is being carried on and not a structure used in
the process of manufacture or forming part of factory premise for
making inward and outward supply of goods/services. Therefore,
it can be safely inferred that facilities in question used will not be a
civil structure and falls within the definition of plant and machin-
ery.
(s) That, the Appellant also relied on the following case laws :-
 Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE & ST Raipur, [2016 (343)
E.L.T. 805 (Tri. - Del.)] (paras 3 and 6) : The Hon’ble CESTAT
Delhi allowed credit of taxes paid on light fit-
tings/structurers, lamps, high mast light, tubes/glasses and
allied fixtures as they necessary for illumination and enable
round the clock operation of the assessee’s factory. According
to the Tribunal, since the light structures are classifiable un-
der Chapters 84, 85 and 9405 of the Central Excise Tariff, the
fact that these fixtures become part of the civil struc-
ture/immovable property was no basis to deny credit of tax-
es paid.
 CCE v. India Cement, 2017 (3) G.S.T.L 144 (Tri. - Hyderabad)
(paras 2 and 4) : The CESTAT allowed credit of taxes paid on
lighting works as they are related to the business of manufac-
ture.
 In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jawahar Mills Limited, 2001
(132) E.L.T. 3, the Supreme Court, having regard to the nor-
mal conditions prevailing in the industry, held capacitors,
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  141