Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 326 - CESTAT AHMEDABADCENVAT Credit on GTA services - Scope of the terms 'means and includes' - Rule 2(l) of CCR - Admissibility of GTA input service credit in view of the definition of input services given in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as it existed during the period of demands - Held that:- Main body of the definition of term ‘input service’ is wide and expansive and covers variety of services utilized by the manufacturer - 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. The period involved is upto October 2005 when the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) specifically included admissibility of input service credit with respect to input services utilized from the place of removal is admissible - Only with effect from 01.04.2008 (under Notification No.10/2008-CE (NT), dt.01.03.2008), the words ‘clearance of final products from the place of removal’ were submitted with the words ‘clearance of final products upto the place of removal’ - Following CCE Vs. Parth Poly Woven Pvt.Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - 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’ - 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 – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|