Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs United Phosphorus Ltd Unit ... on 18 November, 2014
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi
O/TAXAP/1280/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2014
=============================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS....Appellant(s)
Versus
UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD UNIT V....Opponent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 18/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The Revenue has in appeal against the judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) dated 03.01.2014 raised following substantial question of law for our consideration:
"(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that the respondent was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on GTA Service on outward transportation of the goods beyond the place of removal in view of definition of 'input service' in terms of Rule 2(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?"
2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment we notice that the Tribunal has relied on the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012(25) S.T.R. 4. It is undisputed that the question involved in the present tax appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/1280/2014 ORDER Court in which it was held as under:
"18. Bearing in mind the above judicial pronouncements, if we revert back to the definition of the term 'input service', as already noticed, it is coined in the phraseology of "means and includes".
Portion of the definition which goes with the expression means, is any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. This definition itself is wide in its expression and includes large number of services used by the manufacturer. Such service may have been used either directly or even indirectly. To qualify 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 Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/1280/2014 ORDER 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 later portion of the definition which is couched in the expression 'includes'. As already observed, it is held in several decisions that the expression 'includes' cannot be used to oust any activity from the main body of the definition if it is otherwise covered by the expression 'means'. In other words, the expression 'includes' followed by 'means' in any definition is generally understood to be expanding the definition of the term to make it exhaustive, but in no manner can the expression 'includes' be utilized to limit the scope of definition provided in the main body of the definition. To our mind this was also not the intention of the Legislature in the present case."
3. Under the circumstances, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 3 of 3