Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) prescribes the definition of ‘input service’. Since the inception of this definition, the term “Place of removal” has been used and same has assumed great significance because the CENVAT Credit of input services is available up to the place of removal. The term “Place of removal” was not defined in CCR and the definition was being borrowed from Section 4 of Central Excise Act for the purpose of looking into eligibility of availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid on inputs services.

The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 was enacted on August 6, 2014. As usual, certain amendments in indirect taxes have been made. One of the amendments, which became ‘talk of the town’ is the new provision pertaining to deposit pending appeal in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. The new section 35F of Central Excise Act (parallel provision has been made under Section 129E of Customs Act) has been substituted in place of earlier section.

Once, during a casual discussion, when it was brought before a Chief Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise that the quality of orders passed in the department at different levels, have fallen, his response was that an order is the reflection of show cause notice. If show cause notice is bad, order is bound to be bad.

The old man was one of the industry wallahs who used to visit me for discussing problems relating to central excise or for seeking opinions. He had a manufacturing unit of PVC compound in Delhi, the National Capital. He had just narrated the happenings during the visit by central excise staff.