Page 177 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : P.K. MAHAPATRA 111
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.
(ak) That, it is submitted that the Hon’ble AAR never examined and con-
fined their analysis to Sec. 17(5) of the Act and never proceeded to
examine the definition of ‘plant and machinery’ given in the Expla-
nation.
(al) That, the explanation proceeds to clarify the meaning of Plant &
machinery as under :
(i) Any equipment, apparatus or machinery fixed to earth by
foundation
(ii) Any equipment, apparatus or machinery fixed to earth by
structural support
(iii) It includes the foundation and such structural support
The explanation only excludes the immovable property in the na-
ture of land, building or any other civil structure.
(am) That, these expressions of equipment, apparatus, machinery are not
defined in the GST Act, the appellant placed reliance on the above
Supreme Court’s decision wherein similar words were come up for
interpretation in the context of Railway Siding for the purpose of
credit under the erstwhile Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.
(an) That, the same expression of machinery, equipment, apparatus were
defined as ‘capital goods’ and in this case they are defined as ‘plant
and machinery’. The Court after examining the arguments has held
that railway siding can be regarded as machinery, equipment or
apparatus and held that credit is eligible.
The Appellant therefore submits that issue therein involves what
items will come within the ambit of machinery or equipment or ap-
paratus and the same question is involved in the impugned case al-
so.
(ao) That, the impugned order observes that railway siding and allied
works of signaling, telecommunication located outside the premises
of the Appellant cannot be treated as plant and machinery by any
stretch of imagination inasmuch as plant and machinery used for
making outward supplies and rather merit treatment as civil struc-
ture at a premises not within the precincts of the Appellant.
(ap) That, it is also observed that provisions facilitating availment of in-
put tax credit under the CGST Act, 2017 do not extend any blanket
or unconditional permission for availment of credit and all items ir-
respective of its use, place of use and its role in making the outward
supply.
(aq) That, the conclusion of the AAR is also flawed for the following rea-
sons :-
 Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 allows credit inputs/inputs
services used or intended to be used in the course of further-

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  193