10. By that as it may, however, still even on merits, this court finds that the view as expressed by the Tribunal is strictly in conformity with the Rules. Rule 2(k) of the Rules defines ‘input’, whereas Rule 2(1) defines ‘input service’, meaning thereby both the terms have been defined independently. Rule 3 defines the term ‘Cenvat credit’, which includes duty paid under various enactments and also the service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. Rule 3(5) of the Rules only talks about the Cenvat credit taken on inputs or capital goods. It does not refer to the Cenvat on input service, whereas Rule 5. on which reliance is sought to be placed by the Revenue, specifically talks about the Cenvat credit on any input or input service used in the manufacture of final product. This rule pertains to refund in case of exports, which stands altogether on different footings. Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as the tax cannot be levied merely by inference or presumption. It is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. Words cannot be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. Reference can be made to the observations of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667.
