Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) This revision is by the revenue questioning an order passed by the Tribunal dated 16.12.2016, whereby the claim of input tax credit by the assessee, in respect of goods utilized for construction of silo, has been disallowed. Challenge is essentially based upon the definition of 'capital goods' contained under Section 2(f) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. It is contended that 'capital goods' are goods that are moveable in nature, and since silo is a storage tank embedded to earth, as such, it cannot be included within the definition of 'capital goods'. Reliance is also placed upon the definition of 'goods' defined under Section 2(m) of the Act.
(2.) It is urged on behalf of the assessee that definition of goods under Section 2(m) is not relevant, and what has to be interpreted is the definition of 'capital goods', which constitute an separate and distinct category in itself. It is also submitted that plant, particularly a cement plant, is a huge structure which is embedded in earth, and it would not be proper to give a restrictive meaning to the term 'plant' so as to treat it as movable property alone.
(3.) I have heard Learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Devnath and Sri Nishant Mishra for the assessee.;