TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f sponge iron in their factory at Kelandamal, Orissa. For the manufacture of the said finished goods, the appellants procured iron ores during the period April, 2007 to March, 2009. In procuring the said input, the appellants had paid service tax of Rs .35,73,629/- on GTA service amounting to Rs. 10,66,87,195/-. It is the case of the Department that instead of utilizing the entire quantity of iron ores in the manufacture of final products, they have sold a quantity of 2455.05 MTs of "iron ores" as "iron ore fines". It is alleged that the appellants have sold the input as such and did not use the same in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Accordingly, the proportionate cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA service in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the stock house from where it is charged into the Rotary Kiln where the process of direct reduction for manufacture of sponge iron is carried out. It is the submissions of the Id. Advocate that the process of screening of iron ore is an integral, essential and indispensable part of the manufacturing process of sponge iron. The contention is that the iron ore fines generated in the process of screening are in the nature of unavoidable waste which fetches some price when sold in the market. He submitted that in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit on input services, cannot be denied or varied on the ground that some part of the input is contained in the waste. Further he submitted that the iron ore f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, which were used as input, the appellants had paid service tax on GTA services. Consequently, they had availed cenvat credit on the amount of service tax paid on GTA service as the same satisfies the definition of input service prescribed under Section 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of manufacture of sponge iron, the said iron ore was subjected to the process of screening and after completion of the said process, iron ore fines were generated. It is the case of the Revenue that these iron ore fines were not used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, sponge iron, but were sold in the market. Therefore, since the iron ores were sold as such without being used in the manufacture of products, proportionatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inputs or capital goods. It does not refer to the Cenvat on input service, whereas Rule 5, on which reliance is sought to be placed by the Revenue, specifically talks about the Cenvat credit on any input or input service used in the manufacture of final product. This rule pertains to refund in case of exports, which stands altogether on different footings. Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as the tax cannot b....