Breakwater is an immovable property, the applicant is not eligible to avail/utilize the input tax credit on the construction of the break water wall.
Input tax credit— Section 17(5) of CGST Act— In the instant case, appellant is having a LNG regasification plant at Dabhol, Maharashtra are engaged in the regasification of the LNG therein.
The issue of the appellant is whether he will be able to claim the ITC on such construction/reconstruction of the break water. The AAR held that as per section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, the appellant is not allowed to take the credit of ITC of the amount paid to the contractors.
it is a basic question is as whether the break water constructed for the appellant can be considered to be ‘plant and machinery’. The appellant has contended that though break water is an immovable property it is covered under the term ‘plant and machinery’ since Accropods which are used to construct the break water are interlocking device fixed to the earth by foundation are nothing but apparatus.
The explanation to section 17 (5) (d) says that the term ‘plant and machinery’ covers apparatus, equipment and machinery. The break water wall constructed on the sea to protect the ship from high waves can hardly be called machinery or apparatus or equipment.
Held that— In the present case, the breakwater wall or the Accopods that are an essential part of it certainly do not qualify as ‘plant and machinery’.
Breakwater is an immovable property, the applicant is not eligible to avail/utilize the input tax credit on the construction of the break water wall.
Input tax credit— Section 17(5) of CGST Act— In the instant case, appellant is having a LNG regasification plant at Dabhol, Maharashtra are engaged in the regasification of the LNG therein.
The issue of the appellant is whether he will be able to claim the ITC on such construction/reconstruction of the break water. The AAR held that as per section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, the appellant is not allowed to take the credit of ITC of the amount paid to the contractors.
it is a basic question is as whether the break water constructed for the appellant can be considered to be ‘plant and machinery’. The appellant has contended that though break water is an immovable property it is covered under the term ‘plant and machinery’ since Accropods which are used to construct the break water are interlocking device fixed to the earth by foundation are nothing but apparatus.
The explanation to section 17 (5) (d) says that the term ‘plant and machinery’ covers apparatus, equipment and machinery. The break water wall constructed on the sea to protect the ship from high waves can hardly be called machinery or apparatus or equipment.
Held that— In the present case, the breakwater wall or the Accopods that are an essential part of it certainly do not qualify as ‘plant and machinery’.