Page 142 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

468 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
control panels, cables distribution hoards, switches and start-
ers and air compressors would qualify as capital goods under
Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The
Apex Court held the ‘capital goods’ can be machines, ma-
chinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances and
any of these used in the factory for manufacture shall be eli-
gible for credit.
 In Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli v. Maris Spin-
ners Limited, 2008 (223) E.L.T. 163 (Mad.), following the deci-
sion of the Apex Court in Jawahar Mills (cited supra) the
Madras High Court allowed credit of taxes paid on light fit-
tings and parts thereof.
 GST Advance Ruling in the case of Nipro India Corporation
Private Limited [2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 289 (A.A.R. - GST)] by the
Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority where credit of taxes
paid on ‘electrical works’ was allowed to the assessee.
(t) That, the Appellant also stated that as per Section 17 of Factories
Act, 1948, in every part of a factory where workers are working or
passing there shall be provided and maintained sufficient and suit-
able lighting, natural or artificial, or both. Therefore, it is mandatory
for the Appellant to have proper lighting in terms of Factories Act
for round the clock working specially for night shift.
(u) That, without any reference to the decision of the Delhi High Court
in Vodafone Mobile Services Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax,
Delhi, CEAC 12/2016, dated 31-10-2018 [2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 481
(Del.)], the reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the
Bharti Airtel (case), is completely erroneous and misplaced :-
(v) In the Vodafone Mobile Services Limited case, the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court had expressly recorded its dissent with the decision of the
Bombay High Court in the Bharti Airtel case and held the credit of
taxes paid of telecom towers is eligible. According to the Delhi High
Court, the Bombay High Court’s decision in the Bharti Airtel case
goes against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner
of Central Excise v. Solid and Correct Engineering Works, 2010 (5) SCC
122 = 2010 (252) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). The relevant extracts of the deci-
sion are as under :-
“This court is of the opinion, with due respect to the Bombay High
Court that those two judgments are contrary to settled judicial
precedents, including the later view of the Supreme Court in Solid
and Correct Engineering (supra).”
(w) That, the Hon’ble AAR ignored the reliance placed by the Appellant
on the case of M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. during the course of
the hearing and placed reliance on the case of M/s. Bharti Airtel Lim-
ited in support of its conclusion. The Appellant submits that the
principle debated in both the above matters was the same but the
AAR has rejected the contention on the Appellant on one hand
while relying on a similar issue to support their stand.
(x) That, the Delhi High Court had allowed credit of taxes paid on tele-
com towers holding the same to be essential for provision of tele-
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  142