TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed for bringing ashore the raw material unloaded from the ships. Sometimes these tugs and barges are also used for carrying sponge iron (final product) from the jetty to the ships anchored in the sea. It appears, the appellant availed 'repair and maintenance services' for the repair and maintenance of these tugs and barges. They also availed 'insurance services' in respect of these vessels. 'Technical inspection and certification services' were also used in respect of these vessels. Survey was also done. It appears from the records that what was undertaken by the appellant was 'hydrographic survey of Revdanda channel/port for dredging etc'. During the period of dispute (August to October, 2006), the appellant availed the above services and utilized the service tax paid thereon, for payment of duty on their final products. According to the department, the benefit was not admissible to them. They issued two show-cause notices, one for August, 2006 and the other for September, October 2006, proposing to recover the credit taken on the above services, as also to impose penalty. These proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the Assistant Commissioner ordered recovery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal's Larger Bench decision in GTC Industries' case was considered by this Tribunal in Vikram Ispat Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 195 (Tri.-Mum.) and, accordingly, the relevant plea raised by the appellant in their written submissions should be rejected. 5. I have considered the grounds of this appeal, the written submissions of the appellant and the argument of the learned SDR. The lower authorities have found that the barges and tugs were used in the sea and the channel and not in the jetty. In other words, it has been found that these vessels were operated in the sea and channel beyond the jetty. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed in the memorandum of appeal that the said vessels were used not only for bringing raw materials from the ships anchored in the sea to their own jetty but also for conveying the goods from the jetty to their factory. It is claimed that the jetty is located within the precincts of their factory. There is no evidence in support of these claims. In other words, the aforesaid findings of the lower authorities cannot be intertered with. Even according to the appellant, the ships laden with iron ore were anchored in the sea away fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not and includes lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils, coolants, accessories of the final products cleared along with the final product, goods used as paint, or as packing material, or as fuel, or for generation of electricity or steam used in or in relation to manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production; (ii) all goods, except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil, motor spirit, commonly known as petrol and motor vehicles, used for providing any output service; Their Lordships considered the above definition to be divisible into three parts : (1) specific part (main or substantive part); (2) inclusive part; (3) place of use. Further discussion relevant to the instant case can be had from para 14 of the judgment and the same reads as under :- "It may, however, be noted that in the definition of "input" the expression 'used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products' is not a standalone item. It has to be read in entirety and when so read it reads as 'used in or in relation to the manufacture of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....product. The intention of the Legislature is that inputs falling in the inclusive part must have nexus with the manufacture of the final product." (emphasis supplied) The above judgment of the Supreme court hands down an important ruling, which it is to the effect that, where the inclusive part of a definition provides a list of items, any such item should also satisfy the quintessential ingredients of the main part of the definition. In other words, the definition has to be considered in its entirety. The inclusive part is not independent of the main part. It is not a 'stand-alone' provision. This ruling is applicable to 'input service', given the definition of this expression under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. There is nothing in this definition to indicate that the legislative intent behind it is different from the one underlying the definition of 'input'. Accordingly, I hold that any service which is apparently covered by the parameters of the inclusive part of the definition of "input service" should also satisfy the quintessential requirements of the main part of the definition and, accordingly, any person claiming the benefit of Cenvat credit on input service ....