2010 (8) TMI 734 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit on input service credit on security service utilized in residential colony Held that - service provided for the residential colony are welfare of the residence of the colony. Accordingly, the input service credit is denied Penalty - as the issue is in dispute whether the input service credit on security service availed in the residential colony of the manufacturer is available or not, the penalty cannot be imposed. Accordingly, the penalty is dropped

Summary

Issues: Denial of input service credit on security service in a residential colony outside factory premises.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the denial of input service credit on security service used in a residential colony situated outside the factory premises. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions allowed input service credit for repairs, maintenance, and civil construction in residential colonies. They cited cases like Manikgarh Cement v. CCE&C and CCE v. Ultra Tech Cements Ltd. where input service credit for security agency services in residential colonies was permitted.

2. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) referred to cases like CCE v. Manikgarh Cement Works, Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, and Coca Cola India (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, where it was held that Cenvat credit is not available for services provided in residential colonies, including repairs, maintenance, civil construction, manpower recruitment, and cleaning services. The DR argued that the appeal should be rejected based on these precedents.

3. After hearing both sides, the judge examined the previous decisions and noted that the Tribunal had considered the Apex Court's rulings in similar cases. The judge concurred with the view that services provided in residential colonies are for the welfare of the residents and, therefore, denied input service credit based on this interpretation.

4. Regarding the penalty issue, since there was a dispute over the availability of input service credit on security services in the residential colony, the judge ruled that the penalty cannot be imposed and subsequently dropped the penalty.

5. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the decision to deny input service credit for security services in the residential colony, aligning with the Tribunal's interpretation of services provided for the welfare of residents in such colonies.