JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. —The appeals which are not admitted are admitted on following substantial questions of law: Appeal NO. 22/2017 1. Whether, the learned CESTAT has erred by considering services namely; GTA (Outward transportation from depot to buyer''s place/premises) and auction services in respect of which the Assessee has availed the CENVAT credit of service tax, as eligible "Input Services" within the meaning of the definition of "Input Service" provided under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? Appeal No. 23/2017 1. Whether, the learned CESTAT has erred by considering services namely; outdoor catering, GTA (outward transportation from factory to buyer''s place/premises) insurance services, rent a cab services and auction services in respect of which the Assessee has availed the CENVAT credit of service tax, as eligible "Input Services" within the meaning of the definition of "Input Service" provided under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? Appeal No. 44/2015 admitted on 23.11.2016 1. Whether the impugned services namely outdoor Catering. Rent-a-cab, Auction, Club or Association and the GTA (outward freight upto buyer''s place/premises) in respect of which the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit of service tax during the period from April 2010 to September 2011, are eligible ''input services'' within the meaning of ''input services'' defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit correctly or not?" Appeal No. 49/2017 admitted on 06.07.2017 1. Whether the impugned services namely Outdoor Caterer of Factory Canteen, Clearing & Forwarding (C&F) Agent of Depot, Business Auxiliary Service of Depot and the GTA (outward transportation of cement) in respect of which the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax during the period from January 2005 to July 2005, are eligible ''input service'' within the meaning of ''input service'' defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the assessee had availed the Cenvat credit correctly or not?" 2. Since in all the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are decided by this common judgment. 3. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Counsel appearing for the Department Mr. Since in all the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are decided by this common judgment. 3. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Counsel appearing for the Department Mr. Ranka contended that the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in reversing the finding arrived at by CIT (A) and original authority more particularly in view of decisions which are rendered by the Supreme Court where the issue is pending from judgments of different High Courts wherein the first issue is of outdoor catering where in a case of Commissioner v. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Appeal No. (Civil) No. CC 13065 of 2013, Dated 22.11.2013 wherein it has been held as under:- "The Bombay High Court in its impugned order had held that the ratio of Supreme Court ruling in Maruti Suzuki case (2009) 240 ELT 641 (SC) , in the context of ''input'' is applicable for interpretation of expression ''activities relating to business'' in definition of input service. Providing canteen service to the workers is mandatory to assessee who is engaged in business of manufacture of cement failure entails penal consequences. Outdoor catering services were engaged in order to comply with Factories Act, 1948. Use of outdoor caterer''s services has nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final product in this case. Credit of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering services is admissible. Credit not admissible to manufacturer on part of Service Tax borne by worker and affidavit was filed by assessee on reversal of proportionate credit and embedded in the cost of food recover from employees. Credit reversal is supposed to be verified by the authorities. Definition of ''Input Services'' is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture but extends to all services direct nexus or integrally with business or manufacturing final product. Service covered under inclusive part of definition are services rendered prior to commencement of manufacturing activity as well as services rendered after manufacture. Expression ''such as'' in the inclusive part of definition is to be construed as illustrative and not exhaustive in the absence of legislative intention to restrict definition to particular class or category of services used in business. Definition of input service is construed widely in CBE & C Circular dated 23.8.07. Expression ''such as'' in the inclusive part of definition is to be construed as illustrative and not exhaustive in the absence of legislative intention to restrict definition to particular class or category of services used in business. Definition of input service is construed widely in CBE & C Circular dated 23.8.07. Revenue cannot argued against stand taken by CBE & C." 5. He also taken us to the decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2014) 46 taxman.com 180(Guj.) wherein it has been held as under:- To our mind, though there is somewhat difference in the nature of services involved in the present appeals, insofar as all material aspects are concerned, the entire issue has been discussed threadbare and decided in the above-mentioned judgment in the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. As already noted, in the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd., the Court was considering the eligibility of the manufacturer to avail Cenvat credit on the Service Tax credit on security services in residential colony of the Company. In the present case, the issue presented before us pertains to Service Tax credit on insurance of the vehicles. We may notice that such vehicles are used only for the residents of the colony and not for the business purpose of the Company. Such being the facts, decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. (supra) would conclude the issue. 8. In the result, following the ratio of the decision in the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. (supra), we hold that the assessee would not be entitled to Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on such services. The decision of the Tribunal is therefore, reversed. To the above extent, all the tax appeals are allowed. 5.1 He also relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement (2010) 29 STT 230 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under:- 9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi (Supra), we hold that unless the nexus is established between the services rendered and the business carried on by the assessee, the benefit of CENVAT credit is not allowable. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi (Supra), we hold that unless the nexus is established between the services rendered and the business carried on by the assessee, the benefit of CENVAT credit is not allowable. In the present case, in our opinion, rendering taxable services at the residential colony established by the assessee for the benefit of the employees, is not an activity integrally connected with the business of the assessee and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the services such as repairs, maintenance and civil construction rendered at the residential colony constitutes ''input service'' so as to claim credit of service tax paid on such services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 5.2 He contended that services which are given outside the factory premises will not be governed under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 which reads as under: 2(l) - ''input service'' means- (i) services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India where service tax is paid by the manufacturer or the provider of output service being importer of goods as the person liable for paying service tax for the said taxable services and the said imported goods are his inputs or capital goods; or (ii) any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or (iii) 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 up to the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to 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 up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal; but excludes,- (A) service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of section 66E of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services) in so far as they are used for - (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or (B) services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle], in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods; or (BA) service of general insurance business, servicing, repair and maintenance, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods, except when used by- (a) a manufacturer of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor vehicle manufactured by such person ; or (b) an insurance company in respect of a motor vehicle insured or reinsured by such person; or (c) such as those provided in relation to outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, membership of a club, health and fitness centre, life insurance, health insurance and travel benefits extended to employees on vacation such as Leave or Home Travel Concession, when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee;" 5.3 Mr. Ranka has also contended in view of following services which reads as under:- 6.1 That the Id. CESTAT has confirmed disallowance of the CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 18,134/- in respect of following services: (a) outdoor catering in guest house of Rs. 17,002/- (b) pandal & shamiana service of Rs. 226/- and (c) Telephone service of Rs. 906/- 6.2 That the Id. CESTAT has allowed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 36,48,667/- in respect of remaining services namely: (a) outdoor catering of factory canteen of Rs. 18,793/- (b) Clearing & Forwarding (C&F) Agent of Depot of Rs. 9,74,561/- (c) Cargo Handling Service of Depot of Rs. 1,12,336/- (d) Business Auxiliary Service of Depot of Rs. 1,83,036/- (e) GTA (outward transportation of cement) of Rs. 25,39,941/-. 5.4 He has also contended that the original authority while considering the case observed as under: 11. The contention of the appellant is that the place of removal as defined on Section (3)(c) (iii) defines depot as place of removal from where the goods are actually sold after their removal from the factory. Sub Section 3 of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944 reads as:- (i) for the purpose of this section (ii) place of removal means It is therefore, clear that the place of removal provided in Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has its scope limited only for the purpose of Section 4 of the said Act. The scope of term "place of removal" can not be made applicable for the purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 unless it relates to the issues of Section-4 of the Central Excise Act ibid. I agree with the findings of adjudicating authority that the credit of service tax on the services effected after clearance from the place of removal was not available to the appellant. Therefore, credit received on the invoices of persons managing depot and registered under the categories of Business Auxiliary service, Clearing & Forwarding Service and Cargo Handling Service was not available. As regards to reliance placed by the appellants on Circular dated 2.2.2006. I find that this is related to eligibility of Cenvat Credit of Service tax paid on goods transport from factory to depot and sold therefore, the same is not for the eligibility of impugned services. As regards to reliance placed by the appellants on Circular dated 2.2.2006. I find that this is related to eligibility of Cenvat Credit of Service tax paid on goods transport from factory to depot and sold therefore, the same is not for the eligibility of impugned services. I agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority that business auxilliary services provided by marketing agents are not covered under input services. I also agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has utilized Cenvat Credit on service tax of Rs. 35,93,965/- and Education Cess of Rs. 72,836/- (Total Rs. 36,66,801/-) during the period from January, 2005 to July, 2005. This resulting clearance of 8984.912 MT of cement without payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 36,66,801/-, therefore, the appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 4,5,6, & 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 2,3, & 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This amount is recoverable from the appellant under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant has taken credit incorrectly by suppressing the fact to the department. The nature of input service were not known to the department and assessee has not ensured to take correct credit on the basis of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. The irregular availment of the Cenvat Credit resulting of short payment of Central Excise duty, therefore, the appellant is liable to penal action under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant is also liable to penal action under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Interest upon the confirmed demand is also recoverable under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 and under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Shri Vinay Kumar jain, Manager of the appellant has pleaded that penalty has been imposed on them without stating any specific reason except involvement in the deliberate to suppression of facts and irregular availment of Credit. I find that he was looking after the work relating to credit of service tax and responsible for dealing with work. He is liable for panel action. All points raised by the appellant are well discussed by the adjudicating authority in inpugned order and I agree with the same. I find that he was looking after the work relating to credit of service tax and responsible for dealing with work. He is liable for panel action. All points raised by the appellant are well discussed by the adjudicating authority in inpugned order and I agree with the same. 5.5 He contended that the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in allowing the appeal. 5.6 He has also relied upon Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules 2002 which reads as under: Rule 9 Registration. - (1) Every person, who produces, manufactures, carries on trade, holds private storeroom or warehouse or otherwise uses excisable goods, shall get registered : Provided that a registration obtained under rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or rule 9 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 shall be deemed to be as valid as the registration made under this sub-rule for the purpose of these rules. (2) The Board may by notification and subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons who may not require such registration. (3) The registration under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board. 5.7 He has also taken us to the relevant issue where the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Appeal No. (Civil) No. CC 13065 of 2013, Dated 22.11.2013 where the decision of Karnataka High Court in 2016 (44) STR 227 (Kar.) Commissioner v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. decided is subject matter of SLP regarding place of removal. 5.8 He also relied upon decision of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Koktata V-I v. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2014 (34) STR 26 (Cal) wherein it has been held as under:- "5. The aforesaid reasoning, we are sorry to say, has not appealed to us. ''Input service'' as defined in Rule 2(1)(ii) does not include the expenses with regard to post-manufacturing stage except for the purpose of transportation of goods from one place of removal to another place of removal. It is, however, true that relaxation in that regard was made by the Circular issued by the Board on 23rd August, 2007. When the Board has made the relaxation, the assessee is entitled to take the benefit thereof. It is, however, true that relaxation in that regard was made by the Circular issued by the Board on 23rd August, 2007. When the Board has made the relaxation, the assessee is entitled to take the benefit thereof. But, we are not prepared to accept that effect of the Circular would be to amend the Rules. Rules remain what they were. On the basis of the Circular issued by the Board, it cannot be said that under the Rules, ''input service'' includes the transportation service made available to the customer for the purpose of delivering the goods at the destination. The finding, "Therefore, if the service tax is paid on transportation charges, in such cases, it fell within the phrase "clearance of final products from the place of removal" and therefore, the assessee was entitled to CENVAT credit", is erroneous in any event because even the Circular issued by the Board on 23rd August, 2007 does not provide for the allowance as widely as indicated in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court quoted above. The Board in its Circular has made the relaxation in some cases having the factual background as indicated therein. On that basis it cannot be said that because in some cases the outward transportation charges or the service tax payable thereon is claimable as input service, in all cases such benefit may be available. 13. By the amendment made with effect from 1st April, 2008 substituting the word "from" by the word "upto" all that has been done is to clarify the issue. Neither the services rendered to the customer for the purpose of delivering the goods at the destination was covered by the definition of input service prior to 1st April, 2008, nor is the same covered after 1st April, 2008. If the definition provided in section 2 is read as a whole, it would appear that outward transportation charges or taxes paid in regard thereto is claimable only with regard to those transports which were made from one place of removal to another place of removal. 5.9 He relied on another decision of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Haldia v. Lumino Industries Ltd. (2013) 40 taxman.com 270 (Cal) wherein it has been held as under:- 5. 5.9 He relied on another decision of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Haldia v. Lumino Industries Ltd. (2013) 40 taxman.com 270 (Cal) wherein it has been held as under:- 5. Views taken by the Karnataka High Court do not appear acceptable for the following reasons: (a) Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the outward transport service used by the manufacturers for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal upto the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of "input service" provided in rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Hon''ble Division Bench expressed their aforesaid opinion, but no reasons or appropriate reasons are ascertainable by us for the purpose of aforesaid proposition. (b) There are more reasons. In paragraph 30, the Hon''ble Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court opined that. The definition of "input service" contains both the word means'' and includes, but not ''means and includes''. The portion of the definition to which the word means applies has to be construed restrictively as it is exhaustive. However, the portion of the definition to which the word includes applies has to be construed liberally as it is extensive. The exhaustive portion of the definition of ''input service'' deals with service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, it also includes clearance of final products from the place of removal. Therefore, services received or rendered by the manufacturer from the place of removal till it reaches its destination falls within the definition of ''input service.'' We are, with respect to the Hon''ble Division Bench, unable to see how can it be said from the restrictive part of the definition that "the services received or rendered by the manufacturer from the place of removal till it reaches its destination falls within the definition of input service". (c) Yet another reasoning given by the Hon''ble Division Bench is as follows: Therefore, it is clear that till such amendment made effective from 1-4-2008 notwithstanding the clarification issued by the Central Government by way of their circular, transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for ''clearance of final products from the place of removal'' was included in the definition of input service. By the amendment made with effect from 1st April, 2008 substituting the word "from" by the word "upto" all that has been done is to clarify the issue. Neither the services rendered to the customer for the purpose of delivering the goods at the destination was covered by the definition of input service prior to 1st April, 2008, nor is the same covered after 1st April, 2008. If the definition provided in section 2(1)(ii) is read as a whole, it would appear that outward transportation charges or taxes paid in regard thereto is claimable only with regard to those transports which were made from one place of removal to another place of removal. 6. Considering that the Tribunal has merely disposed of the matter following the judgment in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra), the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for re-hearing on merits. 6. He contended that the view taken by the tribunal is contrary to the decision taken by different High Courts. 6.1 He also relied upon the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in Lafrage India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2014 (307) ELT 7 (Chhattisgarh) , wherein it has been held as under:- Our conclusions are as follows: (a) In case of sale at the place of destination, an assessee is only entitled to claim Cenvat credit on service tax paid for the goods transportation agency service provided amount paid was integral part of the price of the goods; (b) In this case, the amount paid for the GTA service was not integral part of the price of the goods; and (c) The assessee was not entitled to claim Cenvat credit of the service tax paid; (d) The question is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee 6.2 He also relied upon the circular which has been sought to be relied upon by the tribunal in one of the appeals. 6.3 Mr. Pathak has taken us to Insurance Services in appeal no.23/2017 which reads as under:- Insurance Services: (P) That the learned CESTAT has failed to appreciate that the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the credit of service tax paid on insurance against erection of plant, insurance of company vehicles, burglary policy against company assets, policy for protection from fire, marline policies to protect goods during transportation through sea. However, the Adjudicating Authority and Learned Commissioner(Appeals) has disallow the credit of service tax paid regarding group accidental insurance policies, fidelity insurance of workers and policies for employees and Mds personal baggage, which are in no way connected with the manufacturing process of the final products by the Assessee. It is submitted that the Assessee did not produce any evidence to show the nexus between these insurance policies and manufacturer of final product, the learned CESTAT without going into the facts of the case and considering the admissibility of the credit has simply allowed the credit of service tax paid on such insurance policies. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7.2 Goods Transport Agency (GTA) - Outward Transportation of Goods- Show cause Notice alleges that outward transportation beyond the place of removal i.e. Factory gate or Depot as the case may be, also does not appeal admissible as the credit taken for transportation beyond the place of removal can not be categorized as input service up to the place of removal in terms of Cenvat credit rules. Hence Cenvat credit taken on services tax paid on services utilized Factory to consumer & Depot to consumer does not appear to be admissible. I observe that inpugned credit is availed against GTA services received for outward transportation of finished goods from factory to the premises of buyers and from depots to the premises of buyers. Assessee heavily placed reliance to CBEC master Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007. In para 8.2 of said circular and it has been clarified that: "That for a manufacturer/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal as per the definition. In case of a factory rate sale, sale from a non-duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the ''place of removal'' does not pose much problem. In case of a factory rate sale, sale from a non-duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the ''place of removal'' does not pose much problem. However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place." The assessee have categorically mentioned in their written reply that: "In their case the Service Tax relates to the freight from factory/Depot to the place of buyer and since property in goods is getting passed on at destination. It is the case of sale taking place at FOR destination. They also submitted the copies of purchase order, invoices, LR and other relevant documents showing sale on FOR basis. Further it is submitted that in case of any damage/loss of goods during transit, the noticees as owners of the goods are liable to bear the same or to claim from insurance company". 7.2.1 As discussed in para 7.1 above, there is no doubt that depot is nothing but extension of the factory itself and sales made through depot of the manufacturer are eligible to be considered as sales made directly by the manufacturers as depot is defined as ''place of removal''. Therefore, clearances from Depot on FOR basis of customer''s premises can be equated to the sale made from factory on FOR basis. Therefore, clearances from Depot on FOR basis of customer''s premises can be equated to the sale made from factory on FOR basis. In view of the above clarification of Board and above discussion the only point relevant in the instant cases is to look into ownership aspect of the goods sold so as to determine the place of removal in the instant case. From the copies of purchase order, invoices, LR and other relevant documents it is apparent that delivery of goods is on FOR basis and the assessee (supplier) has to cover the risk of loss or damage of the goods in transit. The freight is also paid by the assessee. However, it is not correct to say that cement is assessed under Section 4A on MRP basis. The notification applicable for central excise duty on cement has been so framed so as to charge central excise duty with reference to RSP slabs under section 4 itself, without any abatement as in case of Section 4 A ibid. Therefore the claim of the assessee that in case of MRP based assessment, central excise duty on freight element is paid automatically devoid of the merit. Therefore even in case of so called MRP based goods their claim that they have also paid central excise duty on freight element has not been substantiated with any documentary evidence. In such a situation it is not established that they have paid central excis duty on freight element by including cost of freight in the assessable value in respect of all goods. In view of the facts, all the conditions stipulated under CBEC''s said circular have not been satisfied and the credit of service tax paid on outward GTA up to customer''s place can not be allowed to the assessee. Thus, I hold that Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 48,18,868/- availed in respect of GTA Service for outward transportation of goods from factory to customers and from depot to customers is not admissible to them. 16.4 Accordingly, the issue to be decided before me is as to whether CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outward transportation will be admissible even if the transaction value under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not inclusive of outward freight element. 16.4 Accordingly, the issue to be decided before me is as to whether CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outward transportation will be admissible even if the transaction value under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not inclusive of outward freight element. 16.5 From the definition of ''input service'' as given above it is apparent that the input service includes inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto place of removal. I final that admissibility of CENVAT Credit on outward transportation upto the place of removal is unambiguous as is held by the CESTAT in a number of cases. Now the question arises what will be the place of removal of goods. In this regard I would like to refer to the Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007 issued by the Board. Para 8.2 of the said circular reads as under: "8.2 In this connection, the phrase ''place of removal'' needs determination taking into account the facts of an individual case and the applicable provisions. The phrase ''place of removal'' has not been defined in CENVAT Credit Rules. In terms of sub-rule (t) of rule 2 of the said rules, if any words or expressions are used in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and are not defined therein but are defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994, they shall have the same meaning for the CENVAT Credit Rules as assigned to them in those Acts. The phrase ''place of removal'' is defined under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It states that-"place of removal" means- (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be stored without payment of duty; (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed."- "It is, therefore, clear that for a manufacturer/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal as per the definition. In case of a factory gate, sale, sale from a non-duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the ''place of removal'' does not pose much problem. However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place." 16.6 I further find that the said circular issued by the Board has also been approved by the Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision given in the case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 2009(02) LCX0015. 16.7 In view of the said Board''s Circular which has the approval of the Hon''ble High Court, I find that it is clear that for the goods chargeable to central excise duty on the basis of transaction value under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on outward transportation for removal of excisable goods would depend upon the determination of the place of removal as per the definition given under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus in view of the definition of the place of removal as given under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Board''s Circular dated 23.6.2007, I find that there is no doubt that: (i) in cases where the transaction value under section 4 is inclusive of freight charges upto the destination point (customer''s place), the destination is to be treated as ''Place of removal'' and CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outward transportation will be admissible upto such destination point (customer''s place). (ii) In cases where the transaction value under section 4 is not inclusive of freight charges upto the destination point (customer''s place), the factory or the depot, as the case may be from where the goods are sold, is to be treated as ''place of removal'' and CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outward transportation will not be admissible upto such destination point (customer''s place). 6.4 He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ispat Industries Ltd. 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC) wherein it has been held as under:- "24. It will thus be seen that, in law, it is clear that for the period from 28.9.1996 up to 1.7.2000, the place of removal has reference only to places from which goods are to be sold by the manufacturer, and has no reference to the place of delivery which may be either the buyer''s premises or such other premises as the buyer may direct the manufacturer to send his goods. As a matter of law therefore the Commissioner''s order and Revenue''s argument based on that order that freight charges must be included as the sale in the present facts took place at the buyer''s premises is incorrect. Further, for the period 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2003 there will be no extended place of removal, the factory premises or the warehouse (in the circumstances mentioned in the Section), alone being places of removal. Under no circumstances can the buyer''s premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 on the facts of the present case." 7. Mr. Jain appearing in Appeal No. 44/2015 has taken us to the finding arrived at by the Tribunal:- 3. Auction and club and association services. Under no circumstances can the buyer''s premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 on the facts of the present case." 7. Mr. Jain appearing in Appeal No. 44/2015 has taken us to the finding arrived at by the Tribunal:- 3. Auction and club and association services. The Cenvat credit has been taken on service of auction for the sale of waste and scrap arising during the course of manufacturing. To deny the Cenvat credit, learned AR relied on the decision of Sundaram Clayton Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai (Supra). In that case, I find that it was only the stay application where the Bench was of the view that on such services, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. Therefore to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit, the matter was considered. But there is no final order on that service Further, I find that the sale of waste and scrap which is arising out of manufacturing of the final product is a part of the business of manufacturing of cement by the appellant. Therefore, I hold that on auction services, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Further, I find that the charges have been paid for availment of club and association services for the officials visiting outside the city and same has been paid in the case of business of appellant. Therefore, I hold that on this auction and club and association services, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. 4. Outward transportation services, I find that in this case the purchase order shows that goods are to be delivered at the place of buyer on FOR basis and in the invoice, the transportation cost has formed part of the assessable value as the goods are to be delivered at the buyers place. Therefore. The appellant has satisfied the condition of the CBEC circular No.97/08/07 dated 23.8.2007 which has been supported by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lumax Automotives Systems Ltd.(supra). Therefore, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on outward transportation service as the transportation charges have formed part of the assessable value and goods are to be delivered at the place of the buyers. Therefore, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on outward transportation service as the transportation charges have formed part of the assessable value and goods are to be delivered at the place of the buyers. 7.1 He contended that the findings are contrary to decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2009) 9 SCC 193 wherein it has been held as under:- 18. It may be noted from the CENVAT Credit Rules of 2004 vis-a- vis CENVAT Credit Rules of 2002 that the word "for" in the inclusive part after the words "steam used" is substituted by the words "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products". In other words, the crucial requirement of the definition clause is restated by the Legislature. We may note that the CENVAT Credit Rules of 2004 came in force in September, 2004. In some of the cases in batch before us the show cause notice goes right up to January 2005, hence, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 also apply to those cases. In short, an item would fall within the category of "inputs" as defined only on compliance with all the three parts of the definition clause. 19. The question which still remains to be answered is: whether an assessee would be entitled to claim CENVAT credit in cases where it sells electricity outside the factory to the joint ventures, vendors or gives it to the grid for distribution? In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works reported in 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC) the test laid down by this Court is whether the process and the use are integrally connected. As stated above, electricity generation is more of a process having its own economics. Applying the said test, we hold that when the electricity generation is a captive arrangement and the requirement is for carrying out the manufacturing activity, the electricity generation also forms part of the manufacturing activity and the "input" used in that electricity generation is an "input used in the manufacture" of final product. However, to the extent the excess electricity is cleared to the grid for distribution or to the joint ventures, vendors, and that too for a price (sale) the "process and the use test" fails. In such a case, the nexus between the process and the use gets disconnected. However, to the extent the excess electricity is cleared to the grid for distribution or to the joint ventures, vendors, and that too for a price (sale) the "process and the use test" fails. In such a case, the nexus between the process and the use gets disconnected. In such a case, it cannot be said that electricity generated is "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, within the factory". Therefore, to the extent of the clearance of excess electricity outside the factory to the joint ventures, vendors, grid etc. would not be admissible for CENVAT credit as such wheeled out electricity, cleared for a price, would not fall within the definition of "input" in Rule 2(g) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. This view is also expressed in para 9 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Solaris Chemtech Limited (2007) 214 ELT 481 (SC). Further, our view is supported by the observations of this Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. Commnr. Of Central Excise, Indore 2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC) which is quoted below: It appears to us on a plain reading of the clause that the phrase "within the factory of production" means only such generation of electricity or steam which is used within the factory would qualify as an immediate product. The utilization of inputs in the generation of steam or electricity not being qualified by the phrase "within the factory of production" could be outside the factory. Therefore, whatever goes into generation of electricity or steam which is used within the factory would be an input for the purposes of obtaining credit on the duty payable thereon. The utilization of inputs in the generation of steam or electricity not being qualified by the phrase "within the factory of production" could be outside the factory. Therefore, whatever goes into generation of electricity or steam which is used within the factory would be an input for the purposes of obtaining credit on the duty payable thereon. 7.2 He invited our attention to the order passed by AO with regard to outward transportation under GTA Services which reads as under:- 5.4.1 '' Outward transportation under GTA services'' :- Before any deliberation on the issue, I examine the definition of ''Inpur service'' in force at the relevant point of time under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which reads as: "input services" means any service (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacturer of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal and includes services used in relation to 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, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal; but excludes services,- (A) Specified in sub-clauses (p), (zn), (zzl), (zzm), (zzq), (zzzh) and (zzzza) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services), in so far as they are used for- (a) construction of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or (B) specified in sub-clauses (d), (o), (zo) and (zzzzj) off clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle except when used for the provision of taxable services for which the credit on motor vehicle is available as capital goods; or (C) such as those provided in relation to outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, membership of a club, health and fitness centre, life insurance, health insurance and travel benefits extended to employees on vacation such as Leave or Home Travel Concession, when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee. Pain reading of the main part of the above definition revealed that only those services come in the ambit of ''input service'' which are used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance therefore upto the place of removal. Further, the inclusive part of the definition expending the scope of input service upto the activities relating to business also restricts the ''outward transportation upto the place of removal'' and as such any service tax paid on ''outward transportation beyond the place of removal'' do not come in the purview of ''input service'' for the purpose of taking credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that ''place of removal'' has been defined under clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as: (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty;] (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed. I find that a factory/place/premise of manufacture of excisable goods or a place where excisable goods permitted to store without payment of duty, depot, premise off a consignment agent have been declared as ''Place of removal'' and thus, outward transportation upto the said designated place will get coverage under the purview of ''input service''. The impugned notice does not propose disallowance of input service credit on outward transportation from the factory of manufacture of the assessee to their depots or premises of consignment agents. It is not under dispute that the proposed ineligibility of credit is related to input service on outward transportation beyond the place of removal i.e. Factory to Customer, Depot to Customer and Railway siding to Godown, which cannot be termied as ''input service'' in view of definition discussed above. The assessee place reliance on CBEC Circular No. 97/8/07 issued under F.No.137/85/2007-CX.4 Dated 23.08.2007. The assessee place reliance on CBEC Circular No. 97/8/07 issued under F.No.137/85/2007-CX.4 Dated 23.08.2007. I observe that the definition of ''input service'' under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended on 1.3.2008 by replacing the words ''outward transportation from the place of removal'' with the owrds outward transportation upto the place of removal and by virtue of the said amendment, input service has been restricted upto to place of removal and the Board''s circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007 which was used in context of earlier definition can not be applied in view of change in the legal position. As regards argument that the activities relating to business also includes outward transportation upto to customer''s premise, I find that in the said definition, the various activities relating to business have been listed therein and the same specifically refers to outward transportation upto the place of removal only and the definition of ''input service'' and thus, their plea is not tenable. 5.4.2 It has been argued that they had not claimed any deduction towards freight in price of Cement inspite of FOR destination price for payment of duty; and that the availment of credit and valuation for payment of duty are tow independent issues and cannot be mixed. They also placed reliance on case laws in their favour. I find that the duty on Cement was specific and specific-cum-advolrum based on ''Retail Sale price'' and therefore, deduction towards freight has no relevance. In such a situation it can not be established that they have paid Central Excise duty on freight element by including cost of freight in the assessable value. More so the impugned show cause notice only proposes disallowance of input service credit on outward freight availed by the assessee and by raising the valuation issue which is neither under dispute nor relevant also, the assessee is trying to digress from the issue. Therefore, I do not find any of the case laws mentioned by them in Para 3.1.14 above, relevant in this case being relevant to the definition as existed before 1.3.2008. Regarding argument that when two different interpretation are available simultaneously, benefit of doubt be given to the assessee, I do not find two interpretations as the Board''s clarification became redundant by change of legal position w.e.f. 1.3.2008. Regarding argument that when two different interpretation are available simultaneously, benefit of doubt be given to the assessee, I do not find two interpretations as the Board''s clarification became redundant by change of legal position w.e.f. 1.3.2008. In view of the above the credit of service tax paid on outward GTA beyond the place of removal cannot be allowed to the assessee and thus, I hold that Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 35,62,122/- availed in respect of GTA Service for outward transportation of goods from factory to customers, from depot to customers and from railway siding to godown is recoverable them. 5.5.1 Outdoor catering: The assessee''s contention regarding admissibility of cenvat credit in respect of outdoor catering service is that it is mandatory to provide canteen facility to the employees working in the factory as per Factories Act, 1948. I observe that outdoor catering service was taken to perform a statutory obligation and thus, it was in the nature of employee welfare policy and not related to manufacture and clearance of the goods. The Advance Ruling Authority, in their decision reported in 2008(12)S.T.R. 388(A.A.R.), held that provision of buildings for housing, schooling, recreation etc. For workers is welfare measure having no nexus with manufacture, storage or sale, hence construction of quarters for workers is not an input service. Similarly, in the instant case also, outdoor catering service is for the employees'' benefit or welfare and hence does not get covered under "input service". The Hon''ble Calcutta High Court, in its decision in Peico Electronics & Electricals Limited reported in 0201 ITR 477 , held as under: "It may be that the assessee may maintain a canteen for providing facilities for tea or tiffin, lunch or refreshment to the employees who are engaged in such establishment, but that does not made the canteen industrial undertaking in the manufacture or production of any article or thing..... The canteen which is run by the assessee company cannot be said to be for the purpose of the business of the assessee producing articles or things. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of electronic goods and equipments and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that running of the canteen for its employees is for the purpose connected with the assessee''s business of manufacture and production electronic articles and equipments. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of electronic goods and equipments and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that running of the canteen for its employees is for the purpose connected with the assessee''s business of manufacture and production electronic articles and equipments. Even if a factory has to maintain a canteen, it cannot be said that it is an integral part of manufacture or production carried on by the assessee". 5.5.2 Further, while deciding the question as to whether the proceeds to sales made in the canteen run by the particular assessee for the benefit of the its employees on a nonprofit basis form part of the taxable turnover of the assessee, the Hon''ble Delhi Hing Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Limired (005 CTR 477) held that the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on business within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act so far as the transactions in the canteen are concerned, the reference are answered Accordingly. The above decision shows that in taxation statutes, a business activity is always understood to be such activity, which is carried on by the assessee to earn profit. The statutory obligation, in providing for such Canteen service, would not be an activity integral or connected with the principal activity of manufacture. The expansiveness provided by the inclusive part of the definition under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was to, consequently, include only such activities relating to business, which have such direct or indirect nexus with themanufacture and clearances of the excisable goods. I further find that availment of Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services was dened by the Hon''ble Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chennai v. M/s Sundram Brake Linings Ltd. Reported in 2010 (019) STR 0172 (T) after discussing the issue in details. While passing the order in the case of M/s Sundram Brake (supra), Hon''ble Tribunal distinguished the decision of the Hon''ble Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. M/s GTC Ltd. Reported in 2008(12) STR 468(Tri-LB) and discussed the decision of the Hon''ble Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. commissioner reporter in 2009 (015) STR 0657 (T). More so, the service in relation to outdoor catering has since been put in exclusion clause of the definition w.e.f. 01.03.2011 (not from 1.4.2012 as claimed in defence), the credit taken after the said date is inadmissible by any means and the assessee has no right ot claim the benefit in the spirit of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Sangam Spinner Ltd. v. UOI reported at 2011-TIOL- 31-SC-CX , wherein held as, "Since the product High Speed Diesel oil was excluded specifically from the list of eligible inputs in the notifications, there was no question of creation of any right in favour of the appellant to avail such benefit. Therefore, contention that a vested or accrued right is sought to be taken away by giving retrospective effect is without any merit. Consequently, in the facts of this case, not required to answer whether a vested or accrued right could be taken away with retrospective effect. Further on a conjoint reading of all the notifications it is clearly established that the intention of the Government all along was to excluse the appellants from getting the benefit of the MODVAT credit, therefore, the contentions that the Finance Act violates the vested right is without any basis. The various decisions referred to and relied upon by the counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his contention that the vested right created in their favour could not have been divested by the respondent retrospectively is found to be based on misreading of the language of the aforesaid notifications which do not support, but in fact destroy the very basis of the case of the appellants." In view of the changed legal position, the case laws quoted by them in their favour are not going to help them. Thus, I hold that the outdoor catering service do not fall under the definition of input service as provided under Rule2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and credit amounting to Rs. 862/- availed by the assessee on this service is not admissible to them. 7.3 On the other hand counsel for the respondent Mr. Thus, I hold that the outdoor catering service do not fall under the definition of input service as provided under Rule2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and credit amounting to Rs. 862/- availed by the assessee on this service is not admissible to them. 7.3 On the other hand counsel for the respondent Mr. Jhanwar has taken us to the definition of Section 4 which has been defined under the Central Excise Act while referring to Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 where under 2(t) it has been clearly provided as under:- Rule 2** ** ** (t) words and expressions used in these rules and not defined but defined in the Excise Act and the Finance Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in these Acts. 7.4 Therefore, 2(t) and Section 4 of Central Excise Act more particularly clause (c) provides as under:- Section 4** ** ** (c) "place of removal" means - (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place on premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without 3[payment of duty;] 4[(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory;] from where such goods are removed; 4[(cc) "time of removal", in respect of the excisable goods removed from the place of removal referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c), shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory;] (d) "transaction value" means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale or at any other time, including, but not limited to, any amount charged for, or to make provision for, advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty, commission or any other matter; but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods.] 8. He relied on the following decisions in respect of different aspects:- GTA Services (i) In CCE Bangalore v. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar) , it has been held as under:- 29. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are framed by the Central Government by virtue of the powers conferred on it both by the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994 whereas the Determination of Value of Excisable Goods Rules, 20C0 are framed only under the Central Excise Act. Duty or service tax is payable both on goods which are manufactured or produced and services which are rendered or provided. Therefore it is necessary to define Input and Input Service. Input refers to goods and only Excise duty is payable thereon, whereas Input service applies to service on which service tax is payable. The Valuation Rules makes it clear, read with Section 4 and the definition of "place of removal", that the transportation charges upto the place of removal is taken into consideration for valuation for levying excise duty, thus excluding the transportation charges from the place of removal to the place of delivery. Input service per se is not confined to pre-manufacturing stage. It also refers to post manufacturing stage. As is clear from the Circular issued by the Board on 23-8- 2007, where a manufacture/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit, that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place. Therefore if the service tax is paid on transportation charges, in such cases, it fell within the phrase "clearance of final products from the place of removal" and therefore, the Assessee was entitled to CENVAT credit. 30. The definition of ''input service'' contains both the word ''means'' and ''includes'', but not ''means and includes''. The portion of the definition to which the word means applies has to be construed restrictively as it is exhaustive. However, the portion of the definition to which the word includes applies has to be construed liberally as it is extensive. The exhaustive portion of the definition of ''input service'' deals with service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. It also includes clearance of final products from the place of removal. Therefore, services received or rendered by the manufacturer from the place of removal till it reaches its destination falls within the definition of input service. What are the services that normally a manufacturer would render to a customer from the place of removal? They may be packing, loading, unloading, transportation, delivery, etc. Though the word transportation is not specifically used in the said section in the context in which the phrase ''clearance of final products from the place of removal'' is used, it includes the transportation charges. Because, after the final products has reached the place of removal, to clear the final products nothing more needs to be done, except transporting the said final products to the ultimate destination i.e. the customer''s/buyer of the said product, apart from attending to certain ancillary services as mentioned above which ensures proper delivery of the finished product upto the customer. Therefore, all such services rendered by the manufacturer are included in the definition of ''input service''. However, as the legislature has chosen to use the word ''means'' in this portion of the definition, it has to be construed strictly and in a restrictive manner. After defining the ''input service'' used by the manufacturer in a restrictive manner, in the later portion of the definition, the legislature has used the word ''includes''. Therefore, the later portion of the definition has to be construed liberally. Specifically what are the services which fall within the definition of ''input service'' has been clearly set out in that portion of the definition. Therefore, the later portion of the definition has to be construed liberally. Specifically what are the services which fall within the definition of ''input service'' has been clearly set out in that portion of the definition. Thereafter, the words ''activities relating to business'' - an omni-bus phrase is used to expand the meaning of the word ''input service''. However, after using the omni-bus phrase, examples are given. It also includes transportation. The words used are (a) inward transportation of inputs or capital goods (b) outward transportation upto the place of removal. While dealing with inward transportation, they have specifically used the words ''inputs'' or ''capital goods''. But, while dealing with outward transportation those two words are conspicuously missing. The reason being, after inward transportation of inputs or capital goods into the factory premises, if a final product emerges, that final product has to be transported from the factory premises till the godown before it is removed for being delivered to the customer. Therefore, ''input service'' includes not only the inward transportation of inputs or capital goods but also includes outward transportation of the final product upto the place of removal. Therefore, in the later portion of the definition, an outer limit is prescribed for outward transportation, i.e., up to the place of removal. 31. The phrase 'activities relating to business' is an omni-bus one and it finds a place in the inclusive definition. The question is, by a judicial interpretation, outward transportation of the final product from the place of removal till it is delivered to the customer, could be construed as falling within the definition of 'input service'. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that, while interpreting a provision, the Court must take note of not only the express words used but also the words which are not used. If the legislature has expressly used the words 'in respect of the transportation' in a particular manner and did not choose to include within the ambit of the word 'transportation', certain aspects, having regard to the scheme of the section, the way it is worded, it is not open to the Court to include something which the legislature deliberately did not include in the definition. If the Courts indulge in such interpretation, it amounts to re-writing the provision which is impermissible. If the Courts indulge in such interpretation, it amounts to re-writing the provision which is impermissible. Yet another reason for coming to such a conclusion is, in the first part of the restrictive definition 'clearance of final products from the place of removal' is expressly stated. If transportation of final product from the place of removal is included in the phrase 'clearance of final products from the place of removal' again the same cannot be read into the provision under the words 'activities relating to business'. When a particular service was included within the definition, it is not necessary to interpret other provisions of the very same rule to include the said services over again. When a specific provision is made in the first part of the definition portion of the CENVAT Rules which refers to 'clearance of final products from the place of removal' and in the second part (inclusive) of the definition when the phrase used is 'activities relating to business such as', merely because in that portion of the definition either transportation charges is not included or service rendered for clearance of final products is not included, it is impermissible to read those words as in the earlier portion of the definition, it is specifically provided for. It is a well known rule of interpretation that when the statute uses words and phrases in a particular section, meaning has to be given in each of those sections. When the statute provides specifically for a particular contingency, it is to be so interpreted and after so interpreting, it cannot be said in another portion where general words are used, it also includes what is specifically provided. Therefore, the finding recorded by the CESTAT that the phrase and expression 'activities relating to business' admittedly covers transportation upto the customer's place was entirely unnecessary. This interpretation of ours find support from the subsequent conduct on the part of the Central Government, which amended Rule 2(l)(ii). By notification No. 10/2008 -CE.(N.T), dated 1-3- 2008, the words 'clearance of final products upto the place of removal' were substituted in the place of the words 'clearance of final products from the place of removal'. The intention of the legislature is thus manifest. Till such amendment, the words 'clearance from the place of removal' included transportation charges from the place of removal till it reached the destination, namely the customer. The intention of the legislature is thus manifest. Till such amendment, the words 'clearance from the place of removal' included transportation charges from the place of removal till it reached the destination, namely the customer. Therefore, the said input service was included in the early part of the definition 2(l)(ii). Consequently, we cannot read what is expressly provided in the early part of the rule as having been included in the later part of the rule while interpreting the words 'activities relating to business', though it has been amplified by saying it is only an inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal. The phrase "outward transportation upto the place of removal" used in the inclusive portion of the definition (the second part), has to be read along with the word inward transportation of input or capital goods. It has No. reference to 'clearance of final products'. However, when the claims are put forth on the basis of the said circular of 23-8-2007, for benefit of CENVAT credit, even in the cases where the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied relying on the words clearance of final products from the place of removal, the Central Government thought it fit to amend the provision from 1-4-2008 by substituting the word 'upto' in place of 'from', in Clause (ii) of Rule 2(l) making the intention clear i.e. whether it is an inward transportation of input of capital goods or clearance of final products upto the place of removal, any service rendered and service tax paid would fall within the definition of 'input service'. Therefore, it is clear that till such amendment made effective from 1- 4-2008 notwithstanding the clarification issued by the Central Government by way of their circular, transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for 'clearance of final products from the place of removal' was included in the definition of input service. Therefore, it is clear that till such amendment made effective from 1- 4-2008 notwithstanding the clarification issued by the Central Government by way of their circular, transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for 'clearance of final products from the place of removal' was included in the definition of input service. Therefore, the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the words 'activities relating to business' as including clearance of final products 'from the place of removal' which occurred already in the first part of Rule 2(l)(ii) prior to 1-4-2008, runs counter to the language employed in the second part of the definition of 'input service' and is to that extent contrary to the legislative intention and therefore, the said finding is unsustainable in law (ii) In Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. UOI 2009 (236) ELT 436 (P &H) , it has been held as under:- "7. Having heard learned Counsel at a considerable length and perusing the paper book and statutes with their able assistance, we are of the view that the questions of law deserve to be answered in favour of the assessee-appellant and against the revenue. It is undisputed that the appellant being a manufacturer and consigner has paid service tax on the value of goods transported by it by road. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has issued a circular dated 23.8.2007 dealing with the issue concerning 'up to what stage manufacturer/consigner could take credit on the service tax paid on goods transported by it by road'. The issue, in fact, has emerged out of the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the appellant itself. The Board has opined that the phrase 'place of removal' has to be determined by taking into account the facts of each case. According to the circular, the expression 'place of removal' has been defined by Section 4 of the 1944 Act and according to Sub-rule (t) of Rule 2 of the CC Rules, if any words or expression used in those rules are not defined but are defined in the 1944 Act or the 1994 Act then they are to be given the same meaning for the CC Rules as assigned to them in those Acts. Accordingly, reliance on Section 4 of the 1944 Act has been made where place of removal has been defined as under: "place of removal" means (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be stored without payment of duty; A depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed. 8. It is clear from the definition that for a manufacturer/consignor the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal. The circular further contemplates compliance of certain conditions where the sale has taken place at the destination point. The aforementioned part of the circular reads as under: However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place. 9. It is well settled that the circulars issued by the Board are binding and aims at adoption of uniform products. In that regard reliance has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. (supra) and such circulars are binding on the department. 9. It is well settled that the circulars issued by the Board are binding and aims at adoption of uniform products. In that regard reliance has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. (supra) and such circulars are binding on the department. Placing reliance on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of CCE v. Usha Martin Industries 1997 ECR 257(SC) ; Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE 1996 (87) ELT 19 (SC) ; CCE v. Jayant Dalal (P) Ltd. 1996 (88) ELT 638 (SC) ; and CCE v. Kores (India) Ltd. 1997 (89) ELT 441 (SC) , Hon'ble the Supreme Court concluded in para 5 as under: 5. It is clear from the abovesaid pronouncements of this Court that, apart from the fact that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time. 10. It is, thus, evident that the revenue is precluded from challenging the correctness of the circular even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with statutory provisions. It goes further to limit the right of the revenue to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circular. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the circular is binding on the revenue. 11. The only question then is whether the appellant fulfils the requirement of circular. The first requirement is that the ownership of the goods and the property therein is to remain with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step. The aforesaid condition has to be considered to be fulfilled because the supply of cement by the appellant to its customer is 'FOR destination'. The aforesaid condition has to be considered to be fulfilled because the supply of cement by the appellant to its customer is 'FOR destination'. The appellant also bears the freight in respect thereof up to the door step of the customer. The freight charges incurred by it for such sale and supply at the door step of the customer are subjected to service tax which is also duly paid by the appellant. Moreover, the definition of expression 'input service' is available in Rule 2(1) of the CC Rules, which reads thus: 2(1) "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 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; 12. The 'input service' has been defined to mean any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly and also includes, inter alia, services used in relation to inward transportation of inputs or export goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. It has also remain un-controverted that for transportation purposes insurance cover has also been taken by the appellant which further shows that the ownership of the goods and the property in the goods has not been transferred to the seller till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step. Accordingly, even the second condition that the seller has to bear the risk of loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination stand fulfilled. 13. The third condition that the freight charges were integral part of the excisable goods also stand fulfilled as the delivery of the goods is "FOR destination' price. This aspect has been specifically pointed out in para 2.2 of the reply dated 12.4.2006 given to the show cause notice. 13. The third condition that the freight charges were integral part of the excisable goods also stand fulfilled as the delivery of the goods is "FOR destination' price. This aspect has been specifically pointed out in para 2.2 of the reply dated 12.4.2006 given to the show cause notice. Therefore, we are of the view that the first question is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (iii) In CCE v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. 2016 (44) STR 253 (Guj.) , it has been held as under:- The issue pertains to Cenvat credit on outward goods transportation agency service availed by the assessee for transportation of manufactured goods. This issue is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 4 , in which the following observations have been made: 19. When we hold that outward transportation would be an input service as covered in the expression 'means' part of the definition, it would be difficult to exclude such service on the basis of any interpretation that may be offered of the later portion of the definition which is couched in the expression 'includes'. As already observed, it is held in several decisions that 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'. In other words, 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. To our mind this was also not the intention of the Legislature in the present case. 20. There, of course, are certain areas which still remain to be cleared. It was vehemently contended before us by the counsel for the Revenue that later portion of the definition which provides for the inclusion clause limits the outward transportation service up to the place of removal. That being so, according to them, the outward transport service utilized by the manufacturer beyond the place of removal would not qualify as an input service within the definition of Rule 2(1). That being so, according to them, the outward transport service utilized by the manufacturer beyond the place of removal would not qualify as an input service within the definition of Rule 2(1). We may only notice two things in this regard. Firstly, in our view, when we find that outward transport service is covered by the main body of the definition which provides for means part, as specifically including any service directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of final product or clearance of final product from the place of removal, no interpretation of the later part of the definition would permit us to exclude such a service form the sweep of the definition. Secondly, we notice that the definition of the term 'input service' came to be amended with effect from 1-4-2008 and instead of words "clearance of final products from the place of removal", the words "clearance of final products up to the place of removal" came to be substituted. What would be the position if the case had arisen after 1-4-2008 is a situation we are not confronted with. We, therefore, refrain from making any observations in this regard. We, however, cannot help noticing the change in the statutory provisions which is at the heart of the entire controversy. In so far as the cases on hand are concerned, the statutory provisions cover the service used by the manufacturer in relation to the manufacture of the final products or even the clearance of final products from the place of removal. 21. We must, however, for our curiosity reconcile the expression "from the place of removal" occurring in the earlier part of the definition with words 'up to the place of removal' used in inclusive part of the definition. Counsel for the assessees submitted that when a manufacturer transports his finished products from the factory without clearance to any other place, such as godown, warehouse etc. from where it would be ultimately removed, such service is covered in the expression 'outward transportation up to the place of removal' since such place other than factory gate would be the place of removal. We do appreciate that this could be one of the areas of the application of the expression 'outward transportation up to the place of removal'. We are unable to see whether this could be the sole reason for using such expression by the Legislature. 22. We do appreciate that this could be one of the areas of the application of the expression 'outward transportation up to the place of removal'. We are unable to see whether this could be the sole reason for using such expression by the Legislature. 22. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the outward transport service used by the manufacturer for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of "input service" provided in Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (iv) In Commissioner v. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Central Excise Appeal No. 73 of 2014, dated 25.6.2014, , it has been held as under:- 1. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. "Whether the learned Tribunal has committed any quasi judicial indiscipline by not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court and in following the judgment of the learned Tribunal, which was rendered while relying on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and various other High Courts?" We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal should not have ignored the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court simply because the other High Courts have proceeded as observed in a judgment of the Tribunal without reading the judgment of Division Bench of this Court. On that ground, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. We remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for rehearing and for taking note of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or in the meantime, if any judgments are rendered by the Supreme Court on the issue in question. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order." (v) In Madras Cements Ltd. v. Additional CCE (2015) 40 STR 645 (Karnataka) , it has been held as under:- 2. The appellant-assessee deals in the manufacture and sale of cement. According to the appellant, in the present case, sale of cement was made at the destination of the buyer and hence the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit on input service on transportation of the cement sold by the appellantassessee. The appellant-assessee deals in the manufacture and sale of cement. According to the appellant, in the present case, sale of cement was made at the destination of the buyer and hence the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit on input service on transportation of the cement sold by the appellantassessee. Initially, the period in dispute was from August-2006 to October-2007 and from November-2007 to July-2008. In view of the change in definition of input service provided in Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 although the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority had denied the benefit to the appellant for the entire period but the Tribunal granted the benefit of CENVAT credit to the appellant-asses see for the period upto 31.03.2008 but has denied the same from 01.04.2008 to 31.07.2008, which is the relevant period in question in this appeal. 6. The specific case of the appellant-assessee is that the sale of cement was completed only after delivery was made to the buyer. Invoices were produced and filed before the assessing officer, copies of which have also been placed before us for our perusal. In the said invoice, the price of cement has been calculated keeping in view that the same was to be delivered at the address of buyer and the price term clearly mentions as "FOR destination". FOR herein stands for Tree On Road', meaning thereby that the buyer need not pay for the transportation as the goods were to be supplied by the seller at the address of the buyer at cost of the seller. 7. The assessing officer as well as the appellate authority both have considered the invoices which were submitted before them. FOR herein stands for Tree On Road', meaning thereby that the buyer need not pay for the transportation as the goods were to be supplied by the seller at the address of the buyer at cost of the seller. 7. The assessing officer as well as the appellate authority both have considered the invoices which were submitted before them. In his order, the assessing officer has recorded "that on perusal of the invoices it is found that the Price Terms mentions as FOR destination" but has proceeded to record as under: "I find that the assessee has not been able to establish the fact that: (i) the ownership of the goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his doorstep; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; since there is no documentary evidence to establish the fact of insurance coverage by the assessee." The sale was thus considered by the assessing officer to have been finalized at the factory gate and therefore the assessee was not found eligible for Service Tax credit availed by it on outward freight. No finding on merits with regard to such benefit being denied to the petitioner, was given by the Tribunal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that as long as the sale of the goods is finalized at the destination, which is at the door step of the buyer, the change in definition of 'input service' which came into effect from 01.04.2008 would not make any difference. A perusal of invoices makes it clear that the goods were to be delivered and sale completed at the address of the buyer and no additional charge was levied by the assessee for such delivery. From these facts it is clear that the sale was completed only when the goods were received by the buyer. The Circular dated 20.10.2014 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs also, in paragraph-6 makes it clear that 'payment of transport, inclusion of transport charges in value, payment of insurance or who bears the risk are not the relevant considerations to ascertain the place of removal.' 9. The Circular dated 20.10.2014 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs also, in paragraph-6 makes it clear that 'payment of transport, inclusion of transport charges in value, payment of insurance or who bears the risk are not the relevant considerations to ascertain the place of removal.' 9. As per the said Circular, the place of removal has to be ascertained in terms of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which has been dealt with in detail in the said Circular. According to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the intention of the parties as to the time when the property in goods has to pass to the buyer is of material consideration. The record clearly shows that the intention of the parties was that the sale would be complete only after goods are delivered by the seller at the address of the buyer. The assessing officer as well as the appellate authority have held that the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit merely because no documentary evidence has been adduced to establish the fact of insurance coverage by the assessee. In our view, who pays for insurance or bears the risk of goods in transit would not be a material consideration. The same has also been made clear by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, in its Circular dated 20.10.2014. Outdoor Catering (i) In CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010) 29 STT 244 (Bom) , it has been held as under:- 28. In the present case, the question is, whether outdoor catering services are covered under the inclusive part of the definition of "input service". The services covered under the inclusive part of the definition of input service are services which are rendered prior to the commencement of manufacturing activity (such as services for setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory) as well as services rendered after the manufacture of final products (such as advertisement, sales promotion, market research etc.) and includes services rendered in relation to business such as auditing, financing...etc. Thus, the substantive part of the definition "input service" covers services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whereas the inclusive part of the definition of "input service" covers various services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final products. In other words, the definition of "input service" is very wide and covers not only services, which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also includes various services used in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, be it prior to the manufacture of final products or after the manufacture of final products. To put it differently, the definition of input service is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product. 29. The expression "activities in relation to business" in the definition of "input service" postulates activities which are integrally connected with the business of the assessee. If the activity is not integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of final product, the service would not qualify to be a input service under Rule 2(1) of the 2004 Rules. 30. The Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) has considered the expression 'used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product" in the definition of "input" under Rule 2(k) of 2004 Rules and held as follows: 14. ...Moreover, the said expression, viz, "used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product" in the specific/substantive part of the definition is so wide that it would cover innumerable items as "input" and to avoid such contingency the Legislature has incorporated the inclusive part after the substantive part qualified by the place of use. For example, one of the categories mentioned in the inclusive part is "used as packing material". Packing material by itself would not suffice till it is proved that the item is used in the course of manufacture of final product. Mere fact that the item is a packing material whose value is included in the assessable value of final product will not entitle the manufacturer to take credit. Packing material by itself would not suffice till it is proved that the item is used in the course of manufacture of final product. Mere fact that the item is a packing material whose value is included in the assessable value of final product will not entitle the manufacturer to take credit. Oils and lubricants mentioned in the definition are required for smooth running of machines, hence they are included as they are used in relation to manufacture of the final product. The intention of the Legislature is that inputs falling in the inclusive part must have nexus with the manufacture of the final product. 16. In our earlier discussion, we have referred to two considerations as irrelevant, namely, use of input in the manufacturing process, be it direct or indirect as also absence of the input in the final product on account of the use of the expression "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product". Similarly, we are of the view that consideration such as input being used as packing material, input used as fuel, input used for generation of electricity or steam, input used as an accessory and input used as paint are per se also not relevant. All these considerations become relevant only when they are read with the expression "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product" in the substantive/specific part of the definition. In each case it has to be established that inputs mentioned in the inclusive part is "used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product". It is the functional utility of the said item which would constitute the relevant consideration. Unless and until the said input is used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product within the factory of production, the said item would not become an eligible input. The said expression "used in or in relation to the manufacture" have many shades and would cover various situations based on the purpose for which the input is used. However, the specified input would become eligible for credit only when used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Hydrogen gas used in the manufacture of sodium cyanide is an eligible input, since it has a significant role to play in the manufacturing process and since the final product cannot emerge without the use of gas. However, the specified input would become eligible for credit only when used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Hydrogen gas used in the manufacture of sodium cyanide is an eligible input, since it has a significant role to play in the manufacturing process and since the final product cannot emerge without the use of gas. Similarly, Heat Transfer Oil used as a heating medium in the manufacture of LAB is an eligible input since it has a persuasive role in the manufacturing process and without its use it is impossible to manufacture the final product. Therefore, none of the categories in the inclusive part of the definition would constitute relevant consideration per se. They become relevant only when the above crucial requirement of being "used in or in relation to the manufacture" stands complied with. In our view, one has to therefore read the definition in its entirety. 31. In our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) in the context of the definition of 'input' in Rule 2(k) of 2004 Rules would equally apply while interpreting the expression "activities relating to business" in Rule 2(1) of 2004 Rules. No doubt that the inclusive part of the definition of 'input' is restricted to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whereas the inclusive part of the definition of input service extends to services used prior to/during the course of/after the manufacture of the final products. The fact that the definition of 'input service' is wider than the definition of 'input' would make no difference in applying the ratio laid down in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) while interpreting the scope of 'input service'. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), we hold that the services having nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule 2(1) of 2004 Rules. 32. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), we hold that the services having nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule 2(1) of 2004 Rules. 32. As rightly contended by Shri Shridharan, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee, in the present case, the assessee carrying on the business of manufacturing cement by employing more than 250 workers is mandatorily required under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 to provide canteen facilities to the workers. Failure to do so entails penal consequences under the Factories Act, 1948. To comply with the above statutory provision, the assessee had engaged the services of a outdoor caterer. Thus, in the facts of the present case, use of the services of an outdoor caterer has nexus or integral connection with the business of manufacturing the final product namely, cement. Hence, in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra) and holding that the assessee is entitled to the credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service. 33. It is argued on behalf of the Revenue that not only the ratio but the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) must be applied ipso facto to hold that the credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services is allowable only if the said services are used in relation to the manufacture of final products. That argument cannot be accepted because unlike the definition of input, which is restricted to the inputs used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, the definition of 'input service' not only means services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but also includes services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final products. Therefore, while interpreting the words used in the definition of 'input service', the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the context of the definition of 'input' alone would apply and not the judgment in its entirety. Therefore, while interpreting the words used in the definition of 'input service', the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the context of the definition of 'input' alone would apply and not the judgment in its entirety. In other words, by applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), it cannot be said that the definition of 'input service' is restricted to the services used in relation to the manufacture of final products, because the definition of 'input service' is wider than the definition of 'input'. 34. Therefore, the definition of input service read as a whole makes it clear that the said definition not only covers services, which are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, but also includes other services, which have direct nexus or which are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product. In the facts of the present case, use of the outdoor catering services is integrally connected with the business of manufacturing cement and therefore, credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services would be allowable. 35. The argument of the Revenue, that the expression "such as" in the definition of input service is exhaustive and is restricted to the services named therein, is also devoid of any merit, because, the substantive part of the definition of 'input service' as well as the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' purport to cover not only services used prior to the manufacture of final products, subsequent to the manufacture of final products but also services relating to the business such as accounting, auditing...etc. Thus the definition of input service seeks to cover every conceivable service used in the business of manufacturing the final products. Moreover, the categories of services enumerated after the expression 'such as' in the definition of 'input service' do not relate to any particular class or category of services, but refer to variety of services used in the business of manufacturing the final products. There is nothing in the definition of 'input service' to suggest that the Legislature intended to define that expression restrictively. There is nothing in the definition of 'input service' to suggest that the Legislature intended to define that expression restrictively. Therefore, in the absence of any intention of the Legislature to restrict the definition of 'input service' to any particular class or category of services used in the business, it would be reasonable to construe that the expression 'such as' in the inclusive part of the definition of input service is only illustrative and not exhaustive. Accordingly, we hold that all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of 'input service' and in the present case, the outdoor catering services being integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of cement, credit of service tax paid out on catering services has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. (ii) In CCE v. Icl Sugars Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 193 (Kar) , it has been held as under:- 5. While considering the issue whether the services utilised by the assessee is in the course of manufacturing of a final product or not, the Court held as follows: As is clear from the definition any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products constitutes input service. Various services are set out in the definition expressly, as constituting input service. It also includes transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. Therefore the test is whether the service utilized by the assessee is for the manufacture of final product. Such service may be utilized directly or indirectly. Such service may be in the nature of transportation of inputs or capital goods, up to the factory premises or if the final product is removed from the factory premises for outward transportation up to the place of removal. It is only an inclusive definition. The services mentioned in the Section are only illustrative and it is not exhaustive. Therefore when a particular service not mentioned in the definition clause is utilised by the assessee/manufacturer and service tax paid on such service is claimed as Cenvat Credit, that the question is what are the ingredients that are to be satisfied for availing such credit. The services mentioned in the Section are only illustrative and it is not exhaustive. Therefore when a particular service not mentioned in the definition clause is utilised by the assessee/manufacturer and service tax paid on such service is claimed as Cenvat Credit, that the question is what are the ingredients that are to be satisfied for availing such credit. If the credit is availed by the manufacturer, then the said service should have been utilized by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or used in relation to activities relating to business. If any one of these two tests is satisfied, then such a service falls within the definition of "input service" and the manufacturer is eligible to avail Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on such service. Canteen Service 10. It is in this context that when the assessee provides outdoor canteen facilities because of a statutory obligation imposed on him under Section 46 of the Factories Act it becomes a condition of service as far as the employees are concerned. He has paid the service tax on outdoor canteen services. The said expenses incurred by the assessee will also be taken into consideration before fixing the price of the final product. It may be a welfare measure but certainly it is not a charity provided by the employer to the employees. It is an onerous legal obligation imposed on him. 11 and 12** ** ** 13. Therefore, merely because these services are not expressly mentioned in the definition of input service it cannot be said that they do not constitute input service and the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit. In fact, Rule 3 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, specifically provides that the manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take credit. The service tax is leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act and paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of a final product. Therefore under the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the service tax paid on all those services which the assessee has utilized directly or indirectly in or in relation to the final product is entitled to claim the credit. Therefore under the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the service tax paid on all those services which the assessee has utilized directly or indirectly in or in relation to the final product is entitled to claim the credit. Therefore, the Judgment of the Tribunal is legal and valid and is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for any interference. Hence, the substantial questions of law framed in these appeals are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal having since been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, this appeal is disposed off on the very same terms as in CEA Nos. 96/2009 c/w 97/2009, 98/2009, 99/2009, 124/2009 and 125/2009. (iii) In CCE v. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 8 (Guj.) , it has been held as under:- 5. 'Input Service' is defined under Rule 2(l) of the Rules, which insofar as the same is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, reads thus: (l) 'input service' means any service,- (i) ** ** ** (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal, and includes the services 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; 6. As noted hereinabove, under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, it is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to the staff. Thus, provision of canteen services is a statutory requirement. Provision of canteen services being indispensable, it is incumbent on a manufacturer of goods, to provide the same if he desires to run his factory. As noted hereinabove, under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, it is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to the staff. Thus, provision of canteen services is a statutory requirement. Provision of canteen services being indispensable, it is incumbent on a manufacturer of goods, to provide the same if he desires to run his factory. In view of the definition of "Input service" which means any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, the input service does not have to used directly in the manufacture of final products, it may be a service which is only indirectly used in relation to the manufacture of final products. In the circumstances, canteen services which are indispensable in relation to manufacture of the final products would certainly fall within the ambit of "input service" as defined under the Rules. 7. Moreover, Rule 3 of the Rules insofar as the same is relevant for the present purpose provides that the manufacturer shall be allowed to take credit of the service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act; paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of final product on or after the 10th day of September, 2004. A plain reading of the said rule makes it clear that the said provision does not qualify the nature of input service availed of by the manufacturer. 8. In the above factual and legal background, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the service tax paid on outdoor catering services by the canteen located in the respondent's manufacturing premises has to be considered as an input service relating to business and that Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the same. The view taken by the Tribunal being in consonance with the provisions of the Rules does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. In absence of any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed. (iv) In CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 32 STT 244 (Kar) , it has been held as under:- 12. In absence of any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed. (iv) In CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 32 STT 244 (Kar) , it has been held as under:- 12. It is in this context that when the Assessee provides outdoor canteen facilities because of a statutory obligation imposed on him under Section 46 of the Factories Act, it becomes a condition of service as far as the employees are concerned. He has paid the service tax on outdoor canteen services. The said expenses incurred by the Assessee will also be taken into consideration before fixing the price of the final product. It may be a welfare measure but certainly it is not a charity provided by the employer to the employees. It is an onerous legal obligation imposed on him. The cost incurred in rendering such service will be included in the cost of production. Clearing and Forwarding Services (i) In CCE v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.) , it has been held as under:- 5.4 Clearing and Forwarding services: In this regard it was the case of the assessee that service rendered by C & F agents were in relation to sales promotion and, therefore, input service. The adjudicating authority after considering the definition of clearing and forwarding agent as defined under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994 found that the contention that the services rendered as C & F agents were in relation to sales promotion was not acceptable. The assessee in its reply had stated that CENVAT credit availed by it was towards C & F services provided by various C & F agents in different states in India for activities related to sale of goods in domestic market. The adjudicating authority was of the view that the role of C & F agent here is in the sale of goods as admitted by the assessee. Such service would commence only after clearance of final product. According to the adjudicating authority, the service tax paid in respect of post clearance activity is not in relation to the manufacture of final product and, therefore, not an input service. The assessee was, therefore, not eligible to avail of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid towards Commission paid to C & F agents. According to the adjudicating authority, the service tax paid in respect of post clearance activity is not in relation to the manufacture of final product and, therefore, not an input service. The assessee was, therefore, not eligible to avail of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid towards Commission paid to C & F agents. (i) The Tribunal was of the view that C & F agents have a definite role to play in promotion of sales by storing goods and supplying the same to customers. Thus, he is actually promoting sales. (ii) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the service rendered by the C & F agents is also related to sales. It is used after the manufacturing activity is over and after clearance of the final products, that is, after the place of removal, therefore, it does not fall in the main part of the definition of input service and is also not in relation to any of the activities specified in the inclusive part of the definition. It was further submitted that the services rendered by C & F agents can in no manner said to be sales promotion so as to fall within the ambit of the expression input service. On the other hand the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the respondent appointed C & F agents in different States for the purpose of sale of the respondents final products. The goods are stock transferred to the C & F agents who store the same and thereafter sell them. In these cases there is no sale from the respondents factory gate. The goods are sold from the premises of the C & F agents. Accordingly, in these cases the place of removal is the premises of the C & F agents. As per Section 4(3)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, where goods are sold from the premises of the consignment agent or any other place or premises after clearance from the factory, such premises from where the goods are sold is the place of removal. The services of the C & F agents are, therefore, received for clearance of goods at the place of removal. The same is, therefore, input service in terms of the means potion of the definition. The services of the C & F agents are, therefore, received for clearance of goods at the place of removal. The same is, therefore, input service in terms of the means potion of the definition. (iii) In the backdrop of the above facts and contentions reference may be made to the definition of clearing and forwarding agent as defined under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads thus: Clearing and forwarding agent means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent. (iv) Ordinarily, a C & F agent receives goods from the factory or premises of the manufacturer (the Principal) or his agents and stores these goods, dispatches these goods as per orders received from the Principal, arranges transport, etc. for the purpose and prepares invoices on behalf of the Principal. In respect of such service, the C & F agent receives commission on the basis of agreed terms. Therefore, an essential characteristic of any service, to fall in the category of C & F agent, is that the relationship between the service provider and receiver should be in the nature of principal (owner) and agent. The C & F Agent carries out all activities in respect of goods right from the stage of their clearances from the premises of the principal to its storage and delivery to the customers. (v) At this stage reference may be made to the definition of the expression place of removal as defined under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act which reads thus: (c) place of removal means - (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty; (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed. (vi) Thus, the clearing and forwarding agent is an agent of the principal. (vi) Thus, the clearing and forwarding agent is an agent of the principal. The goods stored by him after clearance from the factory would therefore, be stored on behalf of the principal, and as such the place where such goods are stored by the C & F agent would fall within the purview of sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Section 4(3) of the Act and as such would be the place of removal. Viewed from that light the services rendered by the C & F agent of clearing the goods from the factory premises, storing the same and delivering the same to the customer would fall within the ambit of Rule 2(1) of the Rules as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 1-4-2008, namely clearance of final products from the place of removal. However, this court is not in agreement with the view adopted by the Tribunal that such services would amount to sales promotion and is, therefore, an input service. For the reasons stated while discussing the issue as regards service commission paid to foreign agent, the services rendered by the C & F agents cannot be said to be in the nature of sales promotion. This issue stands answered accordingly, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Cargo Handling Services (i) In CCE v. Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 994 (Guj.) , it has been held as under:- 23. Admittedly, cargo handling services are utilized for the purpose of export of final product where the place of removal for the purpose of export shall necessarily have to be the port and therefore any service availed by the exporters until the goods left India from the port are the service used in relation to clearance of final products upto the place of removal. If at this stage, the definition of input service is recollected, it includes services used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of the final product and in relation to clearance of final product from the place of removal. Definition of term 'input service' being very wide in its expression, wherein number of services used by manufacturer are included in the same, used directly or indirectly. 24. Definition of term 'input service' being very wide in its expression, wherein number of services used by manufacturer are included in the same, used directly or indirectly. 24. This Court in the case of Parth Poly Wooven (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that when the manufacturer transports his finished goods from the factory, without clearance to any other place such as, godown, warehouse, etc. from where it would be ultimately removed, such service is covered in the expression "outward transportation up to the place of removal" since such place other than factory gate would be the place of removal. It had been in clear terms held that outward transport service used by the manufacturer for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of 'input service' provided in rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Taking this analogy further, the cargo handling service is availed essentially for the purpose of exporting the goods and in such case, the services of cargo handling used by the manufacturer for transportation of the finished goods from the place of removal shall have to be essentially the port from where goods are actually taken out of the country. 25. Both the authorities have rightly held that tax paid by the service providers under this category of cargo handling service, therefore, would be inclusive in the definition of 'input service'. There is no dispute on the part of the Revenue that such services were availed by the respondents in clearing the goods from the factory premises and for the purpose of export. Accordingly, Tax Appeal is dismissed. Rent a Cab Services (i) In CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 32 STT 244 (Kar) , it has been held as under:- "13. Rent a Cab Service is provided by the assessee to these workers to reach the factory premises in-time which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. In fact the employee is also entitled to conveyance allowance. It also would form part of a condition of service and the amounts spent on the conveyance of the employees is also a factor which will be taken into consideration by the employees in fixing the price of the final product. By no stretch of imagination can it be construed as a welfare measure. It is a basic necessity. It also would form part of a condition of service and the amounts spent on the conveyance of the employees is also a factor which will be taken into consideration by the employees in fixing the price of the final product. By no stretch of imagination can it be construed as a welfare measure. It is a basic necessity. To ensure that the work force comes on time at the work place, the employers have taken this measure which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. At any rate it is an activity relating to business." Insurance (I) In CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 32 STT 244 (Kar) , it has been held as under:- "Insofar as Insurance coverage to the employees is concerned in the course of employment if the employees suffer injury or dies, there is a vicarious liability imposed on the employer to compensate the employee. If the employer employs its own transportation facility in order to cover the risk which also includes the risk of workers who are covered in that statutory establishment. He has to take the insurance policy without which the vehicle cannot go on the road. Under the workman's compensation Act he has to obtain the insurance Policy covering the risk of the employees. The employee State Insurance Act takes care of the health of the employees also and casts an obligation on the employer to provide insurance services. Under these circumstances, this Group Insurance Health Policy though is also a welfare measure is an obligation which is cast under the Statute that the employer has to obey. Section 38 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, mandates that subject to the provisions of the Act, all employees in factories or establishments to which this Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided by this Act. May be the employees also have to contribute but the employer is under an obligation to take an Insurance policy and contribute his share. Therefore, the said Group Insurance Health Policy taken by the assessee is a service which would constitute an activity relating to business which is specifically included in the input service definition." 9. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kinshuk Jain, stated as under: 1. Therefore, the said Group Insurance Health Policy taken by the assessee is a service which would constitute an activity relating to business which is specifically included in the input service definition." 9. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kinshuk Jain, stated as under: 1. That the expression relating to business used in the above said Rules 2 (I) clearly refers to the activities which are integrally related to the business activity of the assessee in relation to manufacture and clearances of the excisable goods. For example, recruitment services are required for procuring manpower to carry out manufacturing activities and in the office managing day to day work relating to such activities, similarly services relating to quality control is required to maintain/ensure the quality of the goods to be manufactured, similarly inward/outward transportation service (GTA) is required in procuring raw materials/consumables/inputs/capital goods for the manufacturing of the final products and for sending the manufactured/other goods. Evidently, use of the input service must be integrally connected with the business related to the manufacture of the final product. In a recent judgment in the case of CCE Chennai v. Sundaram Brake Lining Limited and Others [2010 (019) STR 0172 (T)] , the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai held as under:- " The test laid down in Maruti Suzuki (supra) for interpreting the expression " used in, or relation to the manufacturer of excisable goods" would have to be followed in respect of input services also. The law permits credit of duty/tax in respect of inputs/inputs services only when the said are used in, or in relation to manufacturer of excisable goods. The law does not provide any other basis. It does not provide for credit on the basis that the value of input/input service is included in the value of finished excisable goods. Hence, the tests laid down in Maruti Suzuki (supra) cannot be overlooked. Use of the input service must be integrally connected with the manufacturer of the final product. The input service must have nexus with the process of manufacturer. It has to be necessarily established that the input service is used in or in relation to the manufacturer of the final product. The relevant test would be can the final product emerge without the use of input service in question. The input service must have nexus with the process of manufacturer. It has to be necessarily established that the input service is used in or in relation to the manufacturer of the final product. The relevant test would be can the final product emerge without the use of input service in question. When these tests are applied following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki (supra), one finds that the impugned outdoor catering service does not meet the same in relation to manufacturer of the finished excisable goods listed in the table in Paragraph 2 (Para no. 19 of the Judgment)" 2. That on the issue of Cenvat Credit pertaining to Outdoor Catering Service, the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai in the case of CCE Chennai v. Sundaram Brake Lining Limited (hereinafter SBL in short) and Others [2010 (019) STR 0172 (T)] has held that the outdoor catering service cannot be considered as " input service" relating to the business. The CESTAT has observed, inter alia, that the caterers engaged by the respondent supply various food items for consumption by the workers and the staff. It is no one's case that the good items could even be remotely considered as inputs for the various finished excisable goods manufactured by the respondents which are listed in the said table. The decision of the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble Court, Madras [2014 (36) STR 112 (Mad.)] who had dismissed the petition/appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment of SBL Limited. In the said case, the CESTAT Chennai has distinguished the case of GTC Industries [2008 (012) STR 0468 (Tribunal- LB)] which was subsequently negated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki (under Para 14 of the order). For example, one of the food items "biscuits" is an excisable product on which duty is paid. Neither biscuits can be considered to be input for manufacture of cement, nor the duty paid on biscuits can be allowed as credit for paying duty on such cement. The department's case is that when biscuits are not inputs for cement, the service tax paid for supply of biscuits cannot be allowed for paying duty on the cement. Neither biscuits can be considered to be input for manufacture of cement, nor the duty paid on biscuits can be allowed as credit for paying duty on such cement. The department's case is that when biscuits are not inputs for cement, the service tax paid for supply of biscuits cannot be allowed for paying duty on the cement. Hence, supply of biscuits to the workers engaged in the manufacture of cement cannot be considered as an input service by any stretch of imagination unless the biscuits eaten by the workers can be said to be integrally connected to the manufacture of the finished goods like cement. Moreover, the example also illustrates that the eligibility of credit in respect of any particular input or input service has to be examined not in a general way but only with reference to the particular finished excisable goods and the manufacturing process involved. 3. That while deciding the issue of admissibility of Cenvat Credit Service Tax paid on fright for outward transportation, the Tribunal allowed the credit of service tax paid on fright on outward transportation beyond the place of removal i.e. Factory gate or Depot as the case may to the buyer's premises on FOR destination basis. While granting the benefit of credit of service tax paid on outward freight till the buyer's premises on FOR destination basis, for the period from April 2010 to September 2011, the Tribunal relied on clarification issued in Para 8.2 of the CBEC Master Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007 which is as under:- "........ That for a manufacturer/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during the removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal as per the definition. In case of a factory gate sale, from a non duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory ), the determination of the place of removal does not pose much problem. In case of a factory gate sale, from a non duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory ), the determination of the place of removal does not pose much problem. However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the said contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his doorstep; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination and; (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it case be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provision under the Sale of Goods Act 1930.)" 4. That whereas with effect from 01.04.2008, after the amendment i.e. Substitution of clearance of final product from the place of removal by clearance of final product upto the place of removal, inserted vide Notification No. 10/2008- CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008 in Rule 2 (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the clarification issued vide Para 8.2 of the CBEC Master Circular number 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007, is applicable in the situation prior to the amendment of Rule 2 (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by notification number 10/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008. 5. That in this case the Tribunal erred in allowing the credit of Service Tax paid on fright on outward transportation beyond the place of removal i.e. Factory gate or Depot as the case may be to the buyer's premises on FOR destination basis for the period from April 2010 to September 2011 i.e. after the amendment of Rule (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The amendment by notification number 10/2008- CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008 w.e.f. 01.03.2008 in the Rule 2 (I) ibid, was changed from clearance of final product from the place of removal substituting by clearance of final product up to the place of removal ". Therefore, the credit of service tax paid on freight on outward transportation beyond the place of removal i.e. Factory gate or Depot as the case may be to the buyer's premises on FOR destination basis does not appear to be permissible in law. 6. That Rent-a-cab service is more in the nature of the facility extended to the employees and not in relation to business of manufacture and therefore would not qualify as input service. Furthermore , the assessee has not submitted the bifurcation of use of cabs for business purpose or otherwise. It is clearly stated in OIO that on perusal of the bills, it was observed that the taxies were engaged by the persons who were not the employees of the assessee and therefore it cannot be treated to be used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final product. 7. Auction and Club House service may be useful to the assessee but they fail to be an integral part of the business to effect its efficacy and quality. The business of the assessee can function equally well without these services. The contention of the assessee that the expenses pertained to visits of their employee outside city area in relation to business finds no substance as the expenses incurred relates to recreation and entertainment of the employees. 10. We have heard both the sides. 11. Before coming to the issues of services which are ancilliary to the activities which are carried out by the assessee is the main core of the argument of the whole appeal. 12. The question come first is whether rule 4 (c) will come into operation or not. In view of Section 2(t), it is very clear that the meaning does not define under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 then the meaning is to be derived from the provisions of the Act. 13. In that view of the matter, though Mr. Ranka contended that 3(2) prohibits it only for the purpose of defence services under 4(c) since no other place, the word 'removal' has been defined. 13. In that view of the matter, though Mr. Ranka contended that 3(2) prohibits it only for the purpose of defence services under 4(c) since no other place, the word 'removal' has been defined. In that view of the matter to come out to a conclusion for removal of the goods, the meaning which has been defined under 4(c) is required to take into account. Regarding Rule 9 which is for the registration, in our considered opinion, the Rule 9 of Registration will apply only in a case where assessee deferred payment of excise duty at the time of delivery. In that case, the registration is required to be given for the purpose of payment of excise duty while taking benefit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assesee has to fulfill the conditions which are required to be operating under the Rules more particularly the input services which is defined under 2(L), taking into consideration 2(t), the interpretation put forth by the Tribunal issue wise, on the first issue GTA services in view of five High Court judgments referred above, taking view in favour of the assessee, the service which are required to be for the purpose of manufacturing and delivering will come within the purview of 2(L), outdoor catering services are also required to be carried out for delivering or manufacturing his also governed by the different four high courts judgments Bombay High Court and Gujarat. 14. In that view of the matter, the same is also required to be decided in favour of assessee. 15. Regarding clearing forward agency, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that from the verification of bills, it is found that transport charges are required to be borne out by the assessee. Therefore, that issue is also required to be decided in favour of assessee. 16. Regarding Cargo Handling services & Insruance, in view of Gujarat High Court decision (supra), the issue is required to be answered in favour of assessee. Regarding Rent a Cab in view of Karnataka High Court decision(supra), the issue is required to be answered in favour of assessee. 17. Regarding the issue which has been put forward by Mr. Kinshuk Jain while reading para 3, 4 of the tribunal, it is clear that it is club activities for going for a sale or any other assigned work. It will be operational, manufacturing activity. 18. 17. Regarding the issue which has been put forward by Mr. Kinshuk Jain while reading para 3, 4 of the tribunal, it is clear that it is club activities for going for a sale or any other assigned work. It will be operational, manufacturing activity. 18. In that view of the matter, we confirm the view taken by the Tribunal. The appeals of the Department are required to be dismissed. All the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 19. The appeals are dismissed.