In Re: RFE Solar Pvt Ltd.
GST
2018 (9) TMI 693 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 623 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AAR
Dated:- 1-7-2018
Raj\/AAR\/2018-19\/08
GST
NITIN WAPA AND SUDHIR SHARMA MEMBER
\nPresent for the applicant: CA Yash Dhadda, Counsel (Authorised Representative). CA Rajeev Tiwari
\nNote:
\nUnder Section 100 of the RGST Act 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of RGST Act 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
\nThe Issues raised by the applicant is fit to pronounce advance ruling as they fall under ambit Of the Section 97(2)(a) and (e), they are as given under:
\n(a) Classification of any goods or services or both;
\n(e) Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services both;
\nFurther, the applicant being a registered person, GSTIN is 08AAICR3819D1ZE, as per th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lants”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ted from one location to another in case it is required to do so. No substantial damage shall be caused to any of the components of the Solar Power Plant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 2. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of goods or service, the concept of works contract can be explored first. Works contract in itself is a composite supply in which construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning etc. are involved along with transfer of property in goods. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nd things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n er Bombay & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 181, = 1990 (11) TMI 407 – SUPREME COURT one of the questions SC Court considered was whether a petrol tank, resting on earth on its own weight without being fixed with nuts and bolts, had been erected permanently without being shifted from place to place. It was pointed out that the test was one of permanency: if the chattel was movable to another place of use in the same position or liable to be dismantled and re-erected at the later place. if the answer to the former is in the positive it must be a movable property but if the answer to the latter part is in the positive then it would be treated a permanently attached to the earth. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ce since the property coming into existence Shall not result into immovable property and will remain a movable property only. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Power Plant and not the individual components. Hence in view of above precedence and facts of the case, the given supply should be treated as supply of Solar Power Plant Only. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e in the application for Advance Ruling and further requested that the case may be decided as per the submission made earlier in Advance Ruling Application. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lause 4.26 of the Contract, all risk and liabilities accruing in relation of works (temporary or permanent), and of all equipments, machinery, materials, shall be with contractor until occurrence of the Final Acceptance. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n act service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n term 'immovable property' has not been defined under the GST Act. However, there are a plethora of judgments of the Hon. Supreme Court and the Hon. High Coutts which have helped understand the term 'immovable property'. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s to drill hole in the blast furnace to enable the molten steel to flow out of the blast furnace for collection in ladles for further processing. After the molten material is taken out of the blast furnace, the hole in the wall of the furnace has to be closed by spraying special clay. This function is performed by the mudgun which is brought to its position and locked against the wall for exerting a force of 240-300 tons to fill up the hole in the furnace. The blast furnace in which the inputs are loaded is a massive vessel of 1719 m cubic metre capacity and the size of its outer diameter is 10.6 metres, and the height 31.25 metres. Hot air at 1200 degrees centigrade is fed into the blast furnace at various levels to melt the raw materials. With a view to protect the shell against heat, the blast furnace is lined with refractory brick of one metre thickness. Thus, the drilling machine has to drill a hole through one metre thickness of the refractory brick lining. The drilling machine a<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n y helps in the movement of various components to their determined position. The various components of the mudgun and drilling machine are mounted piece by piece on a metal frame, which is welded to the base plate. The components are stored in a store-house away from the blast furnace and are brought to site and physically lifted by a crane and landed on the cast house floor 25 feet high near the concrete platform where drilling machine and mudgun has to be erected. The weight of the mudgun is approximately 19 tons and the weight of the drilling machine approximately 11 tons. The volume of the mudgun is 1.5 x 4.5 x 1 metre and that of the drilling machine 1 x 6.5 x 1 metre. Having regard to the volume and weight of these machines there is nothing like assembling them at ground level and then lifting them to a height of 25 feet for taking to the cast house floor and then to the platform over which it is mounted and erected. These machines cannot be lifted in an assembled condition. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ction of immovable property. She noticed the judgment of this Court in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also noticed the judgment of the Tribunal in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd. v. CCE – 1993 (65) E.L.T. 121; = 1992 (10) TMI 188 – CEGAT, NEW DELHI which held that the issue of immovable property was never raised before the Supreme Court in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. She found support for her conclusion in the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 18; = 1990 (11) TMI 407 – SUPREME COURT and held that the twin tests laid down by this Court to determine whether assembly\/erection would result in immovable property or not were fully satisfied in the facts of this case. She concluded :- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n erection of immovable property and not “goods”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rmanency test laid down in the aforesaid decision, counsel for the appellant contended that having regard to the facts of this case which are not in dispute, it must be held that what emerged as a result of the processes undertaken by the appellant was an immovable property. It cannot be moved from the place where it is erected as it is, and if it becomes necessary to move it, it has first to be dismantled and then re-erected at another place. This factual position was also accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n em to form a part of the tube mill and purchasing certain components from the market and assembling and installing them on the site to form part of the tube mill which was also covered in the process of welding facility. After noticing several decisions of this Court, the Court observed that the twin tests of exgibility of an article to duty under the Excise Act are that it must be a goods mentioned either in the Schedule or under Item 68 and must be marketable. The word “goods” applied to those which can be brought to market for being bought and sold and therefore, it implied that it applied to such goods as are movable. It noticed the decisions of this Court laying down the marketability tests. Thereafter this Court observed :- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n supports, plates etc. The aforesaid parts were cleared from the premises of the appellants and the mono vertical crystalliser was assembled and erected at site. The process involved welding and gas cutting. The mono vertical crystalliser is a tall structure, rather like a tower with a platform at its summit. This Court noticed that marketability was a decisive test for dutiability. It meant that the goods were saleable or suitable for sale, that is to say, they should be capable of being sold to consumers in the market, as it is, without anything more. The Court then referred to the decision in Quality Steel Tubes (supra) and distinguished the judgment in Narne Tulaman (supra) holding that the contention that the weigh bridges were not goods within the meaning of the Act was neither raised nor decided in that case. After considering the material placed on the record it was held that the mono vertical crystalliser has to be assembled, erected and attached to the earth by a foundation a<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as also the earlier judgment of this Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad – 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). = 1997 (12) TMI 109 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA This Court observed :- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n noticed the processes involved and the manner in which the equipments were assembled and erected. We have also noticed the volume of the machines concerned and their weight. Taking all these facts into consideration and having regard to the nature of structure erected for basing these machines, we are satisfied that the judicial member of the CEGAT was right in reaching the conclusion that what ultimately emerged as a result of processes undertaken and erections done cannot be described as “goods” within the meaning of the Excise Act and exigible to excise duty. We find considerable similarity of facts of the case in hand and the facts in Mittal Engineering and Quality Steel Tubes (supra) and the principles underlying those decisions must apply to the facts of the case in hand. It cannot be disputed that such drilling machines and mudguns are not equipments which are usually shifted from one place to another, nor it is practicable to shift them frequently. Counsel for the appellant su<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n st to prevent wobbling of the machine would not place the machine in the category of 'immovable property' as something attached to the earth. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n not intended to be permanent and was to be shifted after completion of road repair and Construction work hence it was regarded as moveable. But in the instant case the solar power plant has an element of permanency. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Re: RFE Solar Pvt Ltd.GST2018 (9) TMI 693 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 623 (A. A. R. – GST)AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AARDated:- 1-7-2018Raj\/AAR\/2018-19\/08 GSTNITIN WAPA AND SUDHIR SHARMA MEMBER Present for the applicant: CA Yash Dhadda, Counsel (Authorised Representative). CA Rajeev Tiwari Note: … Continue reading “In Re: RFE Solar Pvt Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe contract between the assessee and its clients flows in a way wherein firstly they (assessee) shall agree and enter into 'Terms of Engagement' with each other defining the scope of work to be executed by assessee for client, the commercials for and timelines for EPC work as a whole to be undertaken. Thereafter in some cases, for the sake of convenience and clarity for steps to be undertaken specific terms are agreed and executed for Procurement and Supply of Goods and components forming part of solar power plant and for Installation & Commissioning to be undertaken for the Solar Power Plant as detailed in contract entered
\nIn a nutshell, assessee undertakes following activities for effecting Supply of Solar Power Plants –
\n1) Consulting in Procurement of Land on which Solar Power Generation System shall be installed.
\n2) Procurement and Supply Of components Of Solar Power Generation System (these materials are mostly imported by assessee on the basis of order recei<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThus the plant is effectively movable and can be reinstalled on any other piece of land.
\nThe assessee wants to understand that whether supply under consideration is Supply of Goods or Supply of Service.
\nThat Section 9 of the CGST Act 2017 which is charging section of Goods & Services Tax states:
\n9(1) Subject to provisions of sub-section (2), there shall be levied a tax called the central goods and services tax on all intra-State supplies of goods or services or both, except on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption, on the value determined under section 15 and at such rates, not exceeding twenty per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations Of the Council and collected in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be paid by the taxable person.
\nThe term “goods” has been defined under secti<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe term works contract has been defined under Section 2(119) as
\n (119) “works contract” means a contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in execution of such contract.
\nSince given work executed by the assessee includes supply of goods and also performance of services hence it can be treated as amalgamation of 2 supplies. To decide whether the given amalgamation is composite or mixed supply, there definitions have to be understood.
\nAs per Section 2(30) composite supply is defined as
\n(30) “composite supply” means a supply made by a taxable person to a recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunct<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nHowever under GST, there is a monumental shift in concept of Works Contract which was prevalent under erstwhile VAT and Service Tax regime. In GST, as per definition of works contract service if construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning is for immovable property only, then it will classify as works contract only. Hence it means that aforesaid activities if they are undertaken for a movable property then it will not be works contract service.
\nThat the contract between the client and the assessee covers not only supply<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAs per the definition the term permanently fastened or attached to earth can be treated as immovable property. Any attachment with earth which is temporary in nature or can be shifted from part of earth to another without causing substantial damage to it cannot be treated as immovable property.
\nFurther, on the given issue, CBEC has also clarified in its circular number 58\/1\/2002-CX dated 15\/1\/2002 where in para (e) it was clarified that
\ne) If items assembled or erected at site and attached by foundation to earth cannot be dismantled without substantial damage to its components and thus cannot be reassembled, then the items would not be considered as moveable and will, therefore, not be excisable goods.
\nIn case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1997 (12) TMI 109 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
\nApart from this fi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIt is pertinent to note that Solar Power Plant has two blocks namely Solar Block and Power Block which has various components. The essential ingredients of Solar Power Plant and it's blocks are PV Modules, Panels, Cables, Module Mounting Structures; Fuse Connectors, Inventors and Tra<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nNext point for consideration is if it is supply of goods then what shall be principal supplies. It is important to note that various items from panels, batteries, cables, transformer etc are supplied for the solar power plant. Whether it can be treated as supply Of individual items or supply of solar power plant as a whole remains a question.
\nIn this regard the decision in case of Shree Venkateswara Engg. Corporation Versus C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in 2016 (335) E.LT. 62 (Tri. -Chennai) = 2016 (2) TMI 65 – CESTAT CHENNAI can be referred.
\nIt was held by Hon'ble CESTAT that Energy device\/system (Non-conventional) – Clearance of in knocked down condition as parts – Exemption Notification No. 6\/2002-C.E. – Denial of- Serial No. 16 of List 9 to said notification covering complete device and not parts during relevant period – HELD : Impugned device consistin<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nFurther under notification No 01\/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, at S.No. 234, under HSN Classification 84, 85 and 94, for description.
\nFollowing renewable energy devices parts for their manufacture
\n(c) Solar Power Generating System
\nThe rate Of CGST has been mentioned as 2.5%. In given case also, it has been specified that intention of parties was to supply solar power plant only. Hence according to assessee, the correct classification of given supply should be Chapter 84: Solar Power Generating System at the rate of 5%.
\n2 Issues to be decided:
\n1) Question 1: Whether contract for Erection, Procurement and Commissioning of Solar Power Plant shall be classifiable as Supply of Goods or Supply of Services under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and Rajasthan State Goods and Servi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Findings and analysis:
\nAs per copy of contract submitted by the applicant the contractor i.e. M\/S RFE Solar Private Limited has to execute a “Composite EPC Contract”. After going through the Written submissions, copy of contract and Other additional statements following findings and analysis is made:
\na) It is a composite EPC contract Which has been entered between Kushtagi Solar Power Private Limited (owner) and RFE Solar Private Limited (contractor) on 01.03.2018 for setting up of Solar Power Plant where the contractor has to, inter alia. design, engineer, procure, transport, deliver, develop, erect, install, test and commission the project.
\nb) The contract is to set up a Solar Power Plant and related interconnection facilities (including 110 KV transmission line, 110 Kv pooling substation, main control room and bay extens<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nf) Schedule 2 – Scope of works clearly spells out the terms and condition of “Composite EPC Contract” where contractor has to undertake works of installation, testing and commissioning of Solar Power Plant as per specific demands of owner. So it is not something sold out of shelf.
\ng) There is a single lump sum price for the entire contract.
\nh) The applicant has laid claim under notification No. 01\/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, at S.No. 234, under HSN Classification 84, 85 and 94, for description :
\n * Following renewable energy devices & parts for their manufacture
\n(c) Solar Power Generating System,
\nThe rate of CGST has been mentioned as 2.5%. According to assessee, the correct classification of given supply should be Chapter 84: Solar Power Generating System<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nj) Applicant has relied upon following judgments in furtherance of their arguments of solar power plant being movable property and not immovable:
\ni) Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector – 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1997 (12) TMI 109 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
\nii) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 181, = 1990 (11) TMI 407 – SUPREME COURT
\niii) Shree Venkateswara Engg. Corporation Versus C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in 2016 (335) E.LT. 62 (Tri. -Chennai) = 2016 (2) TMI 65 – CESTAT CHENNAI
\niv) CBEC circular number 58\/1\/2002-cx dated 15\/1\/2002
\nv) Board of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras v. K. Venkataswami Naidu (AIR 1955 Mad 620, 1955 CriLJ 1369) = 1955 (3) TMI 46 – MADRAS HIGH COURT
\nvi) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Solid and Correct Engg Works & ors. (2010 (175) ECR 8 (SC)) = 2010-TIOL-25-SC-CX = 2010 (4) TMI 15 – SUPREME COURT
\nRelying on aforesaid judgements and citations the applicant contends that a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n1. In decision of Allahabad High Court in Official Liquidator v. Sri Krishna Deo and Ors. [AIR 1959 All. 247], = 1958 (5) TMI 35 – HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD wherein, the Court held that a machinery fixed to their bases with bolts and nuts although easily removable are not movable property when they have been set up with definite object of running an oil mill and not with intention of being removed after a temporary use.
\n2. In decision of M\/s. T.T.G. Industries Ltd., vs Collector of Central Excise, 2004 (167) ELT 501 (SC) on 7 May, 2004. = 2004 (5) TMI 77 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The facts of the case are as follows:
\nThe facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant-company pursuant to the acceptance of its tender, entered into an agreement with M<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “The test laid down by the Supreme Court is that if the chattel is movable to another place as such for use, it is movable but if it has to be dismantled and reassembl<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n The appellant has placed considerable reliance on the principles enunciated and the test laid down by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) to determine what is immovable property. In that case the facts were that the respondent had taken on lease land over which it had put up, apart from other structures and buildings, six oil tanks for storage of petrol and petroleum products. Each tank rested on a foundation of sand having a height of 2 feet 6 inches with four inches thick asphalt layers to retain the sand. The steel plates were spread on the asphalt layer and the tank was put on the steel plates which acted as bottom of the tanks which rested freely on the asphalt layer. There were no bolts and nuts for holding the tanks on to the foundation. The tanks remained in position by its own weight, each tank being about 30 feet in height 50 feet in diameter weighing about 40 tons. The tanks were connected with pump <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n The technical member, however, held that the aforesaid decision was of no help to the appellant inasmuch as a leading international manufacturing firm had offered such machines for export to different parts of the world. He further observed that though on account of their size and weight, it may be necessary to shift or transport them in parts for assembly and erection at the site in the steel plant, they must nevertheless be deemed as individual machines having specialized <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “The basic test therefore, of levying duty under the Act is two fold. One, that any article, must be a goods and second, that it should be marketable or capable of being brought to market. Goods which are attached to the earth and thus become immoveable do n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “There can be no doubt that if an article is an immovable property, it cannot be termed as “excisable goods” for purposes of the Act. From a combined reading of the definition of 'immovable property' in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, it is evident that in an immovable property there is neither mobility nor marketability as understood in the Excise Law. Whether an article is permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth require determination of both the intentions as well as the factum of fastening to anything attached to the earth. And this has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case.”
\n It was also held that the decision of this Court in Sirpur Paper M<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In light of above judgements and scope of work it is observed:
\n1) That the Solar Power Plant is a big project and has a permanent location as it is meant for onward sale of power to the consumer. Such plant would therefore have an inherent element of permanency.
\n2) The output of the project i.e. power, would be available to an identifiable segment of consumer. Thus this output supply would involve an element of permanency for which it would not be possible and prudent to shift base from time to time or locate the plant elsewhere at frequent intervals.
\n3) The Solar Power Plant cannot be shifted to any other place without dismantling the same. Further it is a tailor made system which cannot be sold as it is to the other person.
\n4) Solar Power Plant includes civil work such as development of site, structure Structure for 110kv tr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7) An Overview of all makes us observe that the impugned transaction for EPC Contract for the Solar Power Plant which includes engineering, design, procurement, supply, development, testing and commissioning is a “works contract” in terms of clause (119) of section 2 of the GST Act.
\n8) Since the impugned transaction for EPC Contract for the Solar Power Plant is a works contract under section 2(119) as supply of services hence question of principal supply does not arise and so GST tax rate of Solar power Generating System under notification No 01\/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, at S. No. 234, under HSN Classification 84, 85 and 94 is not applicable.
\nBased on above facts along with provisions of law, the ruling is as follows:
\nRULING
\n1. As per the statement of facts<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n