JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Acting C.J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner- The Tata -Iron & Steel Company Limited (M/s. TISCO-hereinafter to be referred as the Company) for the following reliefs: a. For declaration that rails and other materials such as sleepers, points and crossings used in the laying of rail tracks in the petitioners Steel Works at Jamshedpur to be used for moving of raw materials as well as finished products inside the said factory, including to and from the Blast Furnace and the Converter, wherein dutiable iron and steel products (final products) are manufactured, are "inputs" within the meaning of Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and thus eligible to Cenvat Credit in respect of the duties of central excise paid thereon; b. An appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and/or setting aside the communication dated 17 th December, 2003 of the 3 rd Respondent and the decision of the 2 nd Respondent, contained therein, whereunder the 3 rd Respondent informed the petitioner-Company about the decision of the 2 nd Respondent that the petitioners claim for availing Cenvat Credit on rails, sleepers, crossings and other connected materials was not sustainable and thus cannot be accepted and, accordingly, rejected; and c. An appropriate writ or a writ of or order in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents and each of them, their servants and/or agents to forthwith withdraw, revoke, recall and/or cancel the communication dated 17 th December, 2003 of the 3 rd Respondent and the purported decision of the 2 nd Respondent contained therein and communicated thereby and to forbear from giving effect to or acting in terms thereof or pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said purported decision and/or the said purported communication and to act in accordance with law. 2. According to the petitioner-Company, it is engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel products in its Steel Works at Jamshedpur and is one of the largest steel producers in the country. It is duly licensed/registered under the relevant Central Excise Rules for the purpose of carrying on manufacturing activity at its factory. Further case of the petitioner is that the Company is in the process of setting up a one million tone per annum expansion project in its factory in order to increase its capacity. It is duly licensed/registered under the relevant Central Excise Rules for the purpose of carrying on manufacturing activity at its factory. Further case of the petitioner is that the Company is in the process of setting up a one million tone per annum expansion project in its factory in order to increase its capacity. For the said purpose, it requires modification of the existing rail tracks inside the factory premises and laying down new tracks for the purpose of movement of raw materials as well as finished products inside the factory, including to and fro from the furnace and converters wherein the manufacturing processes of the final iron and steel products take place. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Cenvat Credit Rules, the company is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit Benefit in respect of the duties of excise paid on the rails, sleepers, points, crossings and other such materials, which are required for laying down the rail tracks inside the factory since the aforesaid goods are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products in its factory, indirectly, and there being no prohibition made as was provided for in the unamended Rule 57A and Rule 57B of the said Rules. According to the petitioner-Company, by way of abundant caution and bona fide and in order to avoid future dispute and litigation, the Company by its letter dated 8 th October, 2003, drew the attention of the 2 nd Respondent to the aforesaid facts and requested for its decision; as to whether Cenvat Credit can be claimed for such materials. The 3 rd Respondent by its letter dated 14 th/17 th October, 2003 informed the petitioner-Company that, prima facie, Cenvat Credit is not available in respect to the aforesaid goods and asked the Company to submit its legal basis in support of such claim. The Company, thereafter, submitted a detailed representation on 1 st December, 2003 showing grounds in support of its claim of Cenvat Credit in respect of the aforesaid goods, but it was not accepted and by the impugned letter dated 17 th December, 2003, the 2 nd respondent rejected the petitioners claim of Cenvat Credit on rails, sleepers, points, crossings and other such materials. 3. 3. The only question requires determination in this case is: "whether the rails and other materials, such as sleepers, points and crossings, used in the laying of rail tracks inside the petitioners factory at Jamshedpur for moving the raw materials as well as finished products, are "inputs" within the meaning of Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and the petitioner is thereby entitled for Cenvat Credit with respect to the duties of Central Excise, paid thereon?" 4. For determination of the said issue, it is necessary to keep in mind the background and feature of Modvat Credit Scheme, as replaced by Cenvat Credit Scheme. The Central Government with a view to extend proforma credit to all excisable commodities, with exception of few sectors like petroleum, tobacco and textiles, initially framed a scheme, known as Modified Value Added Tax (MODVAT) Credit Scheme, allowing the manufacturer to obtain instant and complete reimbursement of the excise duty paid on the components and raw materials. The said Scheme was replaced by Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) Credit Scheme. Old Modvat Rules 57A to 57B were replaced with new Rules. Until 30 th June, 2001, Modvat and Cenvat Rules were part of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 21 st June, 2001, a separate Rule, as per Cenvat Credit Scheme, was notified by the Central Government, known as Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, which was superseded by Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 with effect from 1 st March, 2002. 5. The object of both Modvat Credit Scheme & Cenvat Credit Scheme fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. , wherein the Supreme Court summarised the scheme with the following observation: 17. It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit for the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtains an acknowledgment thereof. It is entitled to use the credit at any time thereafter when making payment of excise duty on the excisable product. There is no provision in the Rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the excise authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilized, has to be paid for. There is no provision in the Rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the excise authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilized, has to be paid for. We are here really concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its benefit is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use the raw material in its excisable product. The credit is, therefore, indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no co-relation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product that is manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that it becomes available. 6. Old Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was in force between the year 1986 and 20 th February, 1997, specifically excluded machine, machinery, equipments, apparatus, tools and appliances used for processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in the substance or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. 6. Old Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was in force between the year 1986 and 20 th February, 1997, specifically excluded machine, machinery, equipments, apparatus, tools and appliances used for processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in the substance or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. The old Rule 57A was as follows: Rule 57A Applicability- (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished excisable goods (hereinafter referred to as the "final products"), as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, for the purpose of allowing credit of any duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as may be specified in the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the "specified duty") paid on the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the said final products (hereinafter referred to as the "inputs") and for utilizing the credit so allowed towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final products, whether under the Act or under any other Act, as may be specified in the said notification, subject to the provisions of this section and the conditions and restrictions that may be specified in the Notification: Provided that the Central Government may specify the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted. Explanation- For the purposes of this rule, "inputs" includes (a) inputs which are manufactured and used within the factory of production, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, and (b) paints and packaging materials, but does not include- (i) machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools, or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product; ... 7. By Notification No. 6/97-CE(NT) dated 1 st March, 1997, entire rules, as per Modvat Credit Scheme, were substituted by a new set of Rules. 7. By Notification No. 6/97-CE(NT) dated 1 st March, 1997, entire rules, as per Modvat Credit Scheme, were substituted by a new set of Rules. The following new Rule 57A was substituted in place of old Rule 57A: Rule 57A Applicability- (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished excisable goods (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as the final products) as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, for the purpose of allowing credit of any duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as may be specified in the said notification (hereinafter, in this sect/on, referred to as the specified duty) paid on the goods used in the manufacture of the said final products (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as the inputs). (2) The credit of specified duty allowed under Sub-rule (1) shall be utilized towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final products, whether under the Act or under any other Act, as may be specified in the said notification, issued under Sub-rule (1) and subject to the provisions of this section and the conditions and restrictions, if any, specified in the said notification. (3) The Central Government may also specify in the said notification the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted. (4) The credit of specified duty under this section shall be allowed on inputs used in the manufacture of final products as well as on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not. ... 8. Under Rule 57B, the manufacturer of final products were allowed to take credit of specified duty paid on certain inputs, used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, as quoted hereunder: Rule 57B. ... 8. Under Rule 57B, the manufacturer of final products were allowed to take credit of specified duty paid on certain inputs, used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, as quoted hereunder: Rule 57B. Eligibility of credit of duty on certain inputs.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57A, the manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of the specified duty paid on the following inputs, used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not, namely: (i) inputs which are manufactured and used within the factory of production; (ii) paints; (iii) inputs used as fuel; (iv) inputs used for generation of electricity or steam, used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production; (v) packing materials and materials from which such packing materials are made provided the cost of such packing materials is included in the value of the final product; (vi) accessories of the final product cleared along with such final product, the value of which is included in the assessable value of the final product. Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-rule, it is hereby clarified that the term inputs refers only to such inputs as may be specified in a notification issued under Rule 57A. (2) The manufacturer of the final products shall not be allowed to take credit of the duty paid on the following goods, namely: (i) machines, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tools, appliances or capital goods as defined in Rule 57Q (other than those used as component parts in the manufacture of final products), used for any purpose in the factory; ... 9. According to counsel for the Company, after substitution of the New Rule 57A, the specific exclusion of machine, machinery, equipments, apparatus, tools, appliances etc., the bar, as was imposed by the Central Government, was withdrawn; under new Rule 57B, the petitioner became eligible for credit of duty on "inputs", which includes rails and other materials such as sleepers, points and crossings used in the laying of rail tracks in the petitioners workshop at Jamshedpur for moving of raw materials as well as finished products inside its factory. 10. 10. To decide the aforesaid claim, it is relevant to notice Rule 2(g) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which defines "input" for the purpose of the said Rule, as quoted hereunder: Rule 2(g)- input means all goods except (light diesel oil) high speed diesel oil and motor speed, commonly known as petrol, used in or in relation 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 for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production. Explanation-1. The light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil or motor spirit, commonly known as petrol, shall not be treated as an input for any purpose whatsoever. Explanation-2. Inputs include goods used in the manufacturer of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. Rule 3 of the said Rules, 2002 provides for allowance of Cenvat Credit to a manufacturer or producer of final products of duties of excise as specified therein. They are paid on any "inputs" received on or after 1 st March, 2002, which have been received for use in or in relation to the manufacture of final products in the factory of the said manufacturer or producer of dutiable final products, subject to satisfying the conditions, as laid down in the Rules 2002, except those which have been defined as "capital goods". Under Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2002, the goods, which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not, are the "inputs" and are eligible to benefit of Cenvat Credit under the Rules. 11. The expression "in relation to" was noticed and interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Doypack Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India , relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder: 48. The expression "in relation to" (so also "pertaining to"), is a very broad expression which pre-supposes another subject matter. 11. The expression "in relation to" was noticed and interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Doypack Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India , relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder: 48. The expression "in relation to" (so also "pertaining to"), is a very broad expression which pre-supposes another subject matter. These are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board v. Abdul Aziz , following and approving Nitai Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul 66 CWN 767, Shyam Lall v. M. Shayamlal AIR 1933 All 649 and 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reasons of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris.Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the term "relate" is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that "relating to" has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to "concerning with" and "pertaining to". The expression "pertaining to" is an expression of expansion and not of contraction. 12. In the present case, as discussed earlier, the only question requires determination; whether rails and other materials used in laying of rail tracks in the petitioners workshop at Jamshedpur for moving raw materials and finished products are "inputs" within the meaning of Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Rail, crossing, sleepers etc. are used for laying of railway tracks which is quite distinct from the finished manufactured goods of the petitioner and have no nexus as being used in or in relation to the manufacturing of finished products. The expression goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product in the factory denote a closer nexus between the capital goods used by the manufacturer in his factory and the resultant final product i.e. capital goods or its accessories, having direct role in production process. For the goods to be called "input" it has to be in the nature of raw material and not in the nature of capital goods, such as, machinery, machinery plant, appliances or equipment etc. For the goods to be called "input" it has to be in the nature of raw material and not in the nature of capital goods, such as, machinery, machinery plant, appliances or equipment etc. Input would mean anything that is put into the stream of manufacture notwithstanding in the present context manufacture includes incidental and ancillary process necessary for the completion of a product. The goods, in question, as claimed by the petitioner company would be used in laying railway tracks, which, in turn, would be used for transportation of raw material as well as transportation of finished goods. Transportation of finished goods itself is a post manufacturing stage of the end product and is a distinct process. Transportation of raw material too is a distinct process and has got no integral connection with the final product. 13. The petitioner-Company failed to show that rails and other materials are used even indirectly as "inputs" and have nexus with a process for manufacture, which is integrally connected with the ultimate production of the final products. In such a situation, it cannot claim Cenvat Credit under the Rules. The Supreme Courts decision in the case of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna and Ors. reported in AIR 1965 SC 891 " is not applicable in the present case, in view of the finding that the rails and other materials used do not relate even indirectly to the manufacture of final product. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, no relief can be granted and, thus, the impugned letter dated 17 th December, 2003 does not warrant any interference. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.