Page 136 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

70 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
bar for providing storage facility without which stor-
age and warehousing services could not have been
provided and the finding of the original authority as
well as the appellate authority are clearly erroneous.
(iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. Ashok Agencies
(2016 (5) TMI 782) = 2016 (41) S.T.R. 647 (Tribunal) -
wherein the Hon’ble Chennai Tribunal held that
Commissioner (Appeals) has not committed any er-
ror to grant Cenvat credit to the respondent on those
input services which are not disintegrated from
providing output service. It is strange that how with-
out bringing out an edifice Revenue shall realize its
dues towards rental service.
(i) Further, the following judicial pronouncements permit claim
of Cenvat credit on goods or services or both used in fabrica-
tion of parts, components, accessories of the plant and ma-
chinery. It has been consistently held that the parts, compo-
nents, accessories come into existence before the installation
of the machinery and credit of taxes paid on the same cannot
be denied even if they become part of the immovable proper-
ty after installation of the plant and machinery.
(i) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax v. India
Cements Ltd. - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 636 (Mad.).
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spin-
ning & Weaving Mils Ltd. - 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)
(iii) Saraswati Sugar Mill v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Delhi-III - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)
(j) Further, these installations are recorded in the books of ac-
counts under separate heads as per Indian Accounting
Standards (i.e. independent of building or civil structure)
which is sufficient justification that these installations are dis-
tinct from the land and building, Hence, the same do not
form a part of the exclusion portion of the Explanation to
Chapter V and Chapter VI of the CGST Act, 2017 and are ac-
cordingly, not excluded from the definition of ‘Plant and Ma-
chinery’.
The Applicant submits that, basis the above, although the Installations are fixed
to the building/earth, they qualify as ‘Plant’ or ‘Machinery’ under the CGST Act,
2017 and accordingly, the taxes paid on procurement of LIFT should not be re-
garded as blocked credits in terms of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 read
with Explanation to Chapter V and Chapter VI of the CGST Act, 2017.
7. Discussions and findings -
7.1 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the appli-
cant in the application, the pleadings on behalf of the Applicant made during the
course of personal hearing and the Department’s view provided by the jurisdic-
tional officer.
7.2 We find that the extant application seeks Ruling specifically on soli-
tary question, “Whether input credit on purchase of lift would be available to hotel as it

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  152