Appellate Authority denies Input Tax Credit for tie-in pipeline construction outside factory premises.

The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority, rejecting the Appellant's request for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and services utilized in constructing the tie-in pipeline from the Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit (FSRU) to the National Grid. The FSRU was deemed a factory, while the tie-in pipeline outside the factory premises did not meet the criteria for "plant and machinery" under the CGST Act. Consequently, the Appellant was deemed ineligible for ITC under Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit (FSRU) qualifies as a "factory."
2. Whether the tie-in pipeline laid from the FSRU to the National Grid qualifies as "plant and machinery."
3. Whether the Appellant is entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) for goods and services used in constructing the tie-in pipeline.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit (FSRU) qualifies as a "factory."
The Appellate Authority examined whether the FSRU can be considered a "factory" under the CGST Act, as the term is not defined within the Act. The Appellant argued that the term should be understood in its ordinary sense, citing various dictionary definitions that describe a factory as a building or set of buildings where manufacturing occurs. The Authority agreed with this approach, noting that the Supreme Court has ruled against adopting definitions from other statutes when the term is not defined in the relevant statute. They cited the Supreme Court case of M/s. Msco. Pvt. Ltd vs Union of India, which emphasized that words should be interpreted in their ordinary sense unless defined otherwise.

The Authority found that the FSRU, which has structures with walls and roofs where regasification occurs, meets the dictionary definition of a factory. Thus, the FSRU qualifies as a factory.

2. Whether the tie-in pipeline laid from the FSRU to the National Grid qualifies as "plant and machinery."
The Authority examined whether the tie-in pipeline qualifies as "plant and machinery" under the CGST Act. The Appellant argued that the pipeline, equipped with various sophisticated devices and machinery, should be considered "plant and machinery." They cited the explanation to Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, which defines "plant and machinery" but excludes pipelines laid outside the factory premises.

The Authority found that since the FSRU qualifies as a factory, the tie-in pipeline laid from the FSRU to the National Grid is considered a pipeline laid outside the factory premises. Therefore, it does not qualify as "plant and machinery" under the CGST Act.

3. Whether the Appellant is entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) for goods and services used in constructing the tie-in pipeline.
The Appellant contended that they should be entitled to ITC for the goods and services used in constructing the tie-in pipeline, as it is essential for their business operations. They argued that the restriction under Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) should not apply since the pipeline is integral to their regasification process.

The Authority disagreed, noting that the exclusion clause in the explanation to Section 17(5) explicitly excludes pipelines laid outside the factory premises from being considered "plant and machinery." Since the tie-in pipeline is laid outside the factory premises (FSRU), the Appellant is not entitled to ITC for the goods and services used in its construction.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority, denying the Appellant's claim for ITC on goods and services used for constructing the tie-in pipeline from the FSRU to the National Grid. The FSRU qualifies as a factory, and the tie-in pipeline laid outside the factory premises does not qualify as "plant and machinery" under the CGST Act, thus making the Appellant ineligible for ITC under Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d).

---