In a recent decision, reported in 2007 -TMI - 1633 - CESTAT, MUMBAI, honorable tribunal has held that the appellant is not eligible for the credit on the input service i.e. advertising service used in relation to the aerated water which is produced by another manufacture.

In the instant case, the appellant is undertaking advertisement for aerated water for manufacture ex-bottlers, which according to them enhance the sale of the aerated water and in turn enhance the sale of concentrates while paying duty on the concentrates. It is their say, that the price at which the duty is paid includes expenses incurred by them in advertisement for aerated water.

We find that it is admitted fact that advertisement is undertaken not for the promotion of concentrates but for promotion of sales of aerated waters manufactured out of concentrates which are manufactured by bottlers and not the appellant. This cannot be considered to be covered by the definition as being input services used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Since in the present case, the products are concentrates, advertisement for aerated waters cannot be considered as an advertisement for concentrates. They are therefore clearly not covered by the second part of the definition of "input service".

Cenvat credit denial: advertising for products manufactured by others is not admissible as input service. Advertising services promoting finished aerated water produced by third party bottlers are not admissible as input service Cenvat credit for an appellant who manufactures concentrates because the advertisement is directed at the finished product made by others and is not used by the manufacturer in relation to the manufacture of its dutiable goods, thus failing the manufacturer use requirement in the definition of input service.