M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member. - The Stay Petition Nos. ST/Stay/278 to 280/2008 in ST/425 to 427/2008 are directed against impugned Order in Appeal Nos. 22-24/2008 (G) ST, dated 26-5-2008. Since the issue lies in narrow compass, we take up all the stay petitions and appeals together for disposal. After perusal of the said petitions, we find that the Stay Petitions filed by the revenue for staying the operation of the impugned orders have no merit and are dismissed.

2. Appeal Nos. 242-243/2008 and ST/425-427/2008 as filed by the revenue against the impugned Orders-in-Appeal are raising a common issue and being in respect of the very same respondent, they are being disposed by a common order.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of credit to the respondent in respect of the credit availed on Service Tax paid on the services like Insurance Premium; repair of vehicles; AMC charges on telecom; courier charges. The lower authorities issued show-cause notice to the appellants for denial of credit on the Service Tax paid on above services on the ground that these are not covered under the ‘input services’. Show-cause notices were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority and it was held that the respondent is ineligible to avail the Cenvat credit and confirmed the demand and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in all these cases after going through the entire records of the case came to the following conclusion :

"8. On consideration of the rival submissions, I find considerable force in the argument of the appellants. It is not disputed that the inclusive part of the definition of "input service" contain an exhaustive list of services, which have a bearing on the scope of the main part of the definition i.e., "in or in relation to" the manufacture of final products and clearance of the final products. It is true that the Apex Court in Doypack Systems found that the above provisions of law used the phrases "in relation to", "pertaining to" and "relating to" as equivalent expressions. These expressions found in deeming provisions were also held to have been used in an expansive sense. The appellants in this case also urged to follow this decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and impart expansive meaning to the phrase "in relation to" used in rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. But it is the observation of the judiciary that the expression "in relation to" can be found in various grammatical situations in different legislative texts and contexts will have to be construed in a manner consistent with the Scheme of the law. One has to understand the definitions under rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules by keeping in mind the Cenvat Credit Scheme as a whole. It is only from the language of the statute that the intention of the Legislature must be gathered, for the Legislature (sic) no more and no less than what it says. The intention of Legislature is manifest in itself in framing the rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, I am to hold that services used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly "in or in relation to the manufacture and clearance of final products" is covered under rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004."

The above findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are more or less same in all the appeals. Revenue is aggrieved by such orders and hence, they are in appeal before us.

4. The learned SDR would submit that the impugned orders are incorrect and needs to be set aside. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in a nutshell are as under :

(i)The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have examined the issue in the light of the definition of input service as defined in rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In terms of rule 3(4) of the Rules, Cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of the following :

(a)A taxable service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirect