K.K. Agarwal, Technical Member. - We have heard both sides on the issue referred to us viz., whether the services provided by the outdoor caterers in the canteen of the manufacturer is input service, in respect of which credit can be taken by the manufacturer. For this purpose, it would be useful to reproduce the definition of input services as defined under rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said rule reads as under :-

"(l) ‘input service’ means any service,-

(i)used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or

(ii)used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and [clearance of final products up to the place of removal,]

and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to 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 up to the place of removal;"

The above definition stands in two parts i.e., main part contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) and the inclusive clause part starting with the words "and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization ... upto the place of removal". Both sides agreed that the services provided by the outdoor caterer is to be considered as one relating to business and, therefore, will fall under the inclusive part of the definition and not the main definition. However, while the revenue contended that the inclusive clause is limited to only to services enumerated in the inclusive clause and not more and since the disputed services, i.e., outdoor catering is not one of them, it will not qualify as an input service and will have to be tested against the main definition in clause (ii), pertaining to main definition clause in rule 2(l), the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the term "includes" enhances the scope of the definition as it is inclusive in nature and, therefore, the definition cannot be taken one of restrictive approach as held by the Apex Court in the case of Regional Director, ESIC v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha & Sons [1991] 3 SCC 617, where the Apex Court has held as under :-

"...The word ‘include’ in the statutory definition is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension, and not with restriction. The word ‘include’ is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. [See (i) Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn. Vol-3-, p. 1263 and (ii) CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 3 SCC 550, (iii) State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610." (p. 620)

2. It was submitted by the Ld. Jt. CDR that the case laws relating to interpretation of an inclusive definition are mainly relating to definitions which are purely inclusive in nature such as "goods" defined in the clause 2(22) of the Customs Act or section 2(f) defining manufacturer in Central Excise Act. These definitions do not contain a mixture of an express definition and an inclusion part; they are purely inclusive in nature. They do not have a preceding part of express definition (main definition) in the manner "input service" has been defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which says "‘input service’ means any service ... and includes ..."; whereas purel