9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defined under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (2)Whether the ld. Tribunal is right in holding that the credit of Service Tax is admissible in respect of Service Tax paid on Goods Transportation charges for Outward freight by placing reliance of on the decision of Larger Bench of the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore [2009-TIOL-830-CESTAT-BANG-LB] Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding that the credit of service tax is admissible in respect of Service Tax paid on services rendered by Custom House Agent and Clearing & Forwarding Agent to the respondent company by relying upon the finding and decision of Commissioner (Appeal - I) Jaipur in the case of DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited reported at 2006(4) STR 610 (Commr-Appl)? 2. Heard leaned counsel Mr. Y.N.Revani appearing for the appellant-Department and examined the papers and material with his assistance. 3. What had been challenged before the Tribunal in his order of Commissioner (A) allowing the refund of service tax paid on transportation charges upto the port in case of export. It had been challenged by the Revenue that the port is not the place of removal in case of export. But it is factory gate which sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation of the goods beyond the place of removal, no credit can be claimed on the service tax paid. It is further the case of the Revenue that in any case, without establishing that the sale was on FOR basis, that the goods were delivered by the assessee at his cost at the door-step of the purchaser, the assessee cannot take the benefit of Board's circular dated 23.8.2007. 14. We need to interpret the above statutory provisions to be able to decide the issues arising before us. Central provision of law which calls for interpretation is the term 'input service' as defined in Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. This provision in identical, situation came up for consideration before Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., (2009) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-LB). The Tribunal refused to give a restrictive meaning to the definition and observed that such term has to be interpreted in light of the requirement of the business and it cannot be read restrictively so as to confine only upto the factory or upto the depot of the manufacturers. 15. We are informed that the said decision was carried in appeal by the Revenue. The Karnataka High Court, however, has confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and would cover only those banking companies which fall within the purview of the definition and no other." 17.5 In the case of P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1995 SC 1395, wherein the Apex Court brought out the difference in the expression 'means and includes' in the definition clause observing that : "It has been urged that in Rule 2(b) the expression "means and includes" has been used which indicates that the definition is inclusive in nature and also covers categories which are not expressly mentioned therein. We are unable to agree. A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word 'means' or the word 'includes'. Sometimes the words 'means and includes' are used. The use of the word 'means' indicates that "definition is a hard and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition." (See : Gough v. Gough, (1891) 2 QB 665; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682, at p.717. The word 'includes' when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 2 SCC 942, the Apex Court was interpreting the term 'owner' as defined in different State Acts imposing tax on goods upon carriage by road. Term 'owner' in Bihar Act which was referred by the Apex Court for the purpose of judgment provided that 'owner' means the owner of a public service motor vehicle and includes the holder of a permit under the said Act in respect of a public service motor vehicle or any person for the time being in charge of such vehicle or responsible for the management of the place of business of such owner. The Apex Court discarded the interpretation offered by the petitioners whereby the petitioners who were the owners of the vehicles were contending that they would not be liable to pay taxes. It was observed as under: "19. The definition of "owner' repels the interpretation submitted by the petitioners that the definition means not only the owner who is the permit holder but also a booking agency who may be in charge of the vehicle without being a permit holder. The entire accent in the definition of owner is on the holder of a permit in respect of the public service motor vehicle. It is the permit which entitles the holde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify for input service, such service should have been used for the manufacture of the final products or in relation to manufacture of final produce or even in clearance of the final product from the place of removal. The expression 'in relation to manufacture' is wider than 'for the purpose of manufacture'. The words 'and clearance of the final products from the place of removal' are also significant. Means part of the definition has not limited the services only upto the place of removal, but covers services used by the manufacturer for the clearance of the final products even from the place of removal. It can thus be seen that main body of the definition of term 'input service' is wide and expansive and covers variety of services utilized by the manufacture. By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that outward transportation service would not be a service used by the manufacturer for clearance of final products from the place of removal. 19. When we hold that outward transportation would be an input service as covered in the expression 'means' part of the definition, it would be difficult to exclude such service on the basis of any interpretation that may be offered of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or even the clearance of final products from the place of removal. 21. We must, however, for our curiosity reconcile the expression "from the place of removal" occurring in the earlier part of the definition with words 'upto the place of removal" used in inclusive part of the definition. Counsel for the assessees submitted that when a manufacturer transports his finished products from the factory without clearance to any other place, such as godown, warehouse etc. from where it would be ultimately removed, such service is covered in the expression 'outward transportation up to the place of removal" since such place other than factory gate would be the place of removal. We do appreciate that this could be one of the areas of the application of the expression 'outward transportation upto the place of removal'. We are unable to see whether this could be the sole reason for using such expression by the Legislature. 22. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the outward transport service used by the manufactures for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal upto the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of "input service" provided in rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
