1. These are the revenue’s appeals against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 27-2-2007 passed by CCE (Appeals), Jaipur by which he set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s orders-in-original No. 186/06-ST, dated 5-12-2006, 205/06-ST, dated 15-12-2006 and 169/06-ST, dated 4-12-2006 confirming Cenvat credit demands of Rs. 1,20,246, Rs. 8,201 and Rs. 9,363 respectively against the respondent and also imposing penalty on them. The respondents are manufacturer of cement in their plants at Nimbahera and Mongrol and avail Cenvat credit facility. The point of dispute is as to whether they are eligible for service tax credit in respect of "Rent-a-cab services", "cellular telephone services", "repair of car/motor vehicle service" and "photography services". According to revenue, these services cannot be treated as "input services" used in or in relation to manufacture of cement.

2. Heard both the sides.

2.1 Shri A.K. Rastogi, the learned Departmental Representative, reiterating the grounds of appeal pleaded that the condition of the phrase - "directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture..." in the definition of "input services" in rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is not fulfilled in respect of ‘Rent-a-cab (Taxi hire)’, ‘Photography’ ‘Maintenance & repair of cars/Motor vehicles’ and ‘cellular/mobile telephone service’, that the respondents have not established as to how these services have been used in relation to manufacture of the final products and clearance of the final products from the place of removal, that no documentary evidence has been submitted by the respondents that these services were used for their in relation to their business and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.

2.2 Shri Atul Gupta, Company Secretary, the learned counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the services, in question, are used in or in relation to the manufacturing and business activity of the respondent, that Rent-a-cab (Taxi hire) services are used for movement of technical team and experts who frequently visit the factory premises and the mines, that many times the technical persons from the Head office located at Kanpur visit the plants at Nimbahera and Mangrol, that engineers visit the various sections of the plant and the mines for day-to-day operation, for which rented cabs are used, that photographs of various plants or some equipment are sent by the respondent to various statutory bodies evidencing that a particular production process was as per requirement of this statute, that the respondent-company maintains of fleet of cars and other vehicles for use of their service offices for respondent company’s work and repair and maintenance expenses have been incurred for maintenance of these vehicles, that cellular phones have been used for the company’s work only and personal use of such phones has to be paid for by the employee, that credit in respect of mobile phone is available in view of Tribunal’s judgments in cases of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 6 STT 328 (Mum. - CESTAT) and Grasim Industries v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 381 (New Delhi - CESTAT), that as per the Tribunal’s judgment in case of CCE v. Cable Corpn. of India Ltd. [2009] 19 STT 158 (Mum. - CESTAT), ‘rent-a-cab service’ used for bringing employees to work in factory for manufacture of goods is an ‘input service’ as defined under rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and that the Tribunal in case of Victor Gaskets India Ltd. v. CCE [2008] 14 STT 403 (Mum. - CESTAT), while holding that ‘outdoor catering services’ for running canteen in the factory premises is included in the expanded inclusive definition of ‘input service’, has observed that the expression - ‘such as’ in rule 2(l) means stipulated activities that follow the expression are only illustrations and not limitation and that the expression - "in relation to" used in rule 2(l) has to be given a wide meaning as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Collect