Page 154 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

480 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
8.2 The Appellant in their defense have also cited reference to the GST
Advance Ruling in the case of Nipro Corporation Pvt. Ltd. by Maharashtra AAR,
stating that credit of taxes paid on “electrical works” was allowed. In the cited
case the said credit was allowed for items used at the production
floor/production utilities, which is certainly not the case here inasmuch as here
the items are undisputedly being used for lighting of Plant Road, Boundary wall
& watchtower and are not for making any “outward supply”, as discussed in the
preceding paras. Thus the case of M/s. Nipro Corporation Pvt. Ltd. supra, cited by
the Appellant does not in any way relate to the present case. It is also worth men-
tioning here that as per Section 103(1) of CGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pro-
nounced by the Authority or the Appellate Authority under this Chapter shall be
binding only on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred
to in sub-section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling and on the concerned officer
or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant.
8.3 Citing reference of the case of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited v.
Commissioner of Service Tax (Delhi High Court) dated 31-10-2018 the Appellant’s
contention was that Credit of taxes paid on telecom towers have been allowed. In
this context, it is seen that the case of M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. and Other
such providers of Telecommunication service providers are distinct and distin-
guishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, inasmuch as in
the cited case such towers are being used for providing the “output service”, viz.
Telecommunication service, whereas in the instant case there is no nexus be-
tween the impugned items required for the said project of lighting of plant Road,
Boundary wall and watchtower on which ITC is being claimed and the “outward
supply” of the Appellant. In the cited Vodafone case, ‘Capital goods’ are the items
under specified Tariff headings or parts, components, spares or accessories
thereof and these are ‘Base Transmission System’ (BTS), which enables the tele-
com company to transmit mobile signals and thereby render telecom services.
Appellant have also given reference to other case laws as well all of which in
view of the above stated reasons are distinct and distinguishable from the issue
in hand. As already discussed it is of utmost importance for availing credit, that
the nexus test gets established. Thus, the cited case laws are not applicable to the
instant case.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and discus-
sions as above, we dispose of the instant appeal filed by M/s. NMDC, the Appel-
lant by passing the following order :-
ORDER
10. The ruling so sought by the Appellant is accordingly answered as
under :-
In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Appel-
lant M/s. NMDC having GSTIN 22AAACN7325A3Z3, against the Ad-
vance Ruling Order No. STC/AAR/02/2019, dated 24th April, 2019
passed by the AAR, Chhattisgarh and accordingly the said order is
upheld.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  154