Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of trading to be considered as exempted service for the period prior to 01.04.2011 even though the same has been identified as an exempted activity only from 01.04.2011? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in giving effect to the amendment introduced to the definition of exempted service for the period prior to 01.04.2011? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the credit taken on input service is liable to be reversed even though there is no specific method of computation of value during the disputed period? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the input services used directly or indirectly or in or in relation to the manufacture of taxable goods alone is eligible for credit in terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quantifying the demand in a method which is not prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules? 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of parts of pre-heater and clearing the same to Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., Dalmiapuram on payment of excise duty. The goods were supplied on the basis of the contract entered into between the appellant and Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. for the supply of parts of pre-heaters used in the cement industry and the contract was for Rs.41.45 crores. It is the case of the Department that out of the contract valued at Rs.41.45 crores, the appellant manufactured and supplied the goods to the value of Rs.5.41 crores only during January, 2004 and the remaining value of the goods to the tune of Rs.36.04 crores were supplied by procuring them from outside. In otherwords, the value of goods at Rs.36.04 crores was traded from a third party source and supplied to Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., and not manufactured by the appellant in their unit. In otherwords, the value of goods at Rs.36.04 crores was traded from a third party source and supplied to Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., and not manufactured by the appellant in their unit. M/s. Adhunik Corporation, Calcutta had received sales commission of Rs.2.00 crores from the appellant for procuring the above mentioned contract valued at Rs.41.45 crores. M/s. Adhunik Corporation had paid service tax of Rs.20,18,000/- and the appellant took credit of the said service tax paid. 3. Alleging that the appellant had wrongly availed service tax credit and utilised the same for payment of central excise duty on an ineligible claim suppressing the third party source, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "11. Therefore, F.L. Smidth Ltd., Dalmiapuram are hereby required to show cause to the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, as to why: a) an amount of Rs.17,21,791/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs twenty one thousand seven hundred and ninety one only) towards service tax and Education Cess to the tune of Rs.33,047/- (Rupees thirty three thousand and forty seven only) both totalling Rs.17,54,838/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty four thousand eight hundred and thirty eight only) being the amount of wrong availment of Service Tax credit taken on the service tax paid on the materials procured and supplied should not be recovered under the proviso to Sec.11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. b) Interest at the appropriate rates on the above credit wrongly availed and utilized should not be collected under Sec.11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. c) penalty should be imposed on them under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 for wrongly taking and utilizing the credit of duty paid on the materials consumed towards construction of various foundations." 4. The appellant had submitted their reply interalia contending that there was no suppression and the definition of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is an inclusive definition and therefore the credit was correctly availed and that was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority holding that in respect of goods that were traded and supplied to Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., the provisions of Rule 2(l) clearly barred the benefit of Cenvat Credit. It is only in respect of goods valued at Rs.5.41 crores that were manufactured and supplied, they were entitled to the Cenvat Credit. Accordingly, the following order is passed: "18. In view of the foregoing I pass the following order: ORDER i. I confirm the demand of Rs.17,54,838 (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight only) (Ex. Duty - Rs.17,21,791/- and Educational Cess: Rs.33,047/-) from M/s. F.L. Smidth Ltd., Dalmiapuram demanded under the provisions of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. ii. I confirm the demand of interest on the above amount confirmed in (i) above, at appropriate rates under Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. iii. I also impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) on M/s. F.L. Smidth Ltd., Dalmiapuram." 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and thereafter the appellant pursued the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 6. The question that is posed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is though the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is an inclusive definition and the entire contract has to be taken as a whole, as a consequence, the service tax has been paid by M/s. Adhunik Corporation, Calcutta can be availed as cenvat credit by the appellant/assessee. For better appreciation of the above plea, Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is set out hereunder: "input service means any service – (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service or; (ii) used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal." (emphasis supplied) 7. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that they are manufacturing and supplying pre-heaters to Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. and there is no dispute that input service means service used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service or used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. 8. If this definition is understood in a proper manner, it will only reveal that input service means service used by the appellant - manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. In the present case, the pre-heater valued at Rs.5.41 crores is the final product, which was manufactured and cleared from the place of removal, i.e., from the appellant's factory. The remaining goods valued at Rs.36.04 crores were not manufactured as final product and cleared from the place of the appellant. In such a case, it would not qualify for the benefit of cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, as rightly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The service tax paid on sales commission in respect of procuring orders by M/s. Adhunik Corporation cannot be utilised by the appellant for taking credit for the goods not manufactured as a final product and cleared from the appellant's manufacturing unit. 9. The order of the Tribunal in this regard is extracted below for better clarity. "5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant availed input service credit on commission for procurement of orders. 9. The order of the Tribunal in this regard is extracted below for better clarity. "5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant availed input service credit on commission for procurement of orders. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the input service credit in respect of manufacturing activity, service tax on commission was allowed. Credit was denied in respect of that portion of service tax relating to the commission paid on trading goods. The definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules means any service used by a manufacturer whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant availed credit on commission in respect of trading goods, which are not in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and therefore there are not eligible to avail credit on the commission paid on trading goods. 6. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant had not taken any CENVAT credit on input service attributable to trading. I do not find any merit in this submission insofar as it is admitted position that the appellant had taken CENVAT credit on that portion of service tax relating to the commission paid on the trading goods. The case laws relied upon by the learned Advocate, perhaps, would support the case of the Revenue. In the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), it has been held that activities not integrally connected into business of manufacture of final products would not qualify as input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules. In the present case, input service credit is not related to business of manufacture of final product and therefore, credit was rightly denied." 10. On an understanding of the above provision, namely, Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, there is no manner of doubt that input service means goods which is used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacturing of final product and clearance of final product from the place of removal. In the present case, the Department has allowed cenvat credit in respect of the value of goods amounting to Rs.5.41 crores and denied for the balance. In the present case, the Department has allowed cenvat credit in respect of the value of goods amounting to Rs.5.41 crores and denied for the balance. We find no error in such determination, which is in consonance with Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 11. On the plea of limitation, it has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal and there is a clear finding that the appellant had not disclosed the availment of input service credit on commission in respect of trading activities and it came to the knowledge of the Department only on verification of the documents, such as, contract agreements, commission agreements etc. and therefore the plea of limitation was rightly rejected by the Authorities below. 12. There is absolutely no merit in the present appeal which requires consideration by this Court. We find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.