2014 (1) TMI 822 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Job worker - Guest house facility - whether CENVAT credit could be taken on security services availed by the appellant for guarding the inputs which they had sent to the premises of the job-worker, where the goods were converted into an intermediate product and sent back to the factory of the appellant - whether CENVAT credit can be taken on security services availed at the guest houses maintained by the appellant near their factory for use of their employees during their visit to the factory for doing work relating to manufacture or other business activities - Held that - credit of tax paid on any input service, used in the manufacture of intermediate products, by a job worker availing the benefit of exemption specified in Notification No. 214/86-C.E. be allowed. I find that the orders relied upon by the departmental representative has not examined the express provision under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules or the recent clarification dated 19-1-2010 issued by C.B.E. & C. in the matter - there is no reason to deny Cenvat credit of security services utilized by the appellant at the premises of the job workers and paid for by the appellant. Guest house facility is that, which can be utilized both for the personnel engaged in the manufacturing process and business process as well for satisfaction of their personal needs. Since the precedent decisions are to the effect that Cenvat credit cannot be allowed for tax paid for services utilized at guest houses - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether CENVAT credit could be taken on security services availed for guarding inputs sent to job-worker premises.
2. Whether CENVAT credit can be taken on security services at guest houses near factory for employee use.

Analysis:
1. The issue of CENVAT credit on security services at job-worker premises was contested. The consultant for the appellant argued for credit under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the service's use in relation to manufacturing intermediate products. The adjudicating authority, however, denied credit citing a stricter interpretation of the rule. Previous tribunal decisions were referenced, such as Commissioner of Central Excise v. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., to support the denial of credit. The consultant countered with a circular from C.B.E. & C. highlighting the broader scope of service credit under Rule 3. The consultant also differentiated the present case from previous decisions, stressing the specific provision in Rule 3 and the lack of consideration of the circular in those cases.

2. Regarding security services at guest houses, the consultant argued for credit, asserting their integral connection to manufacturing activities. The appellant relied on Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad to support their claim that there is no restriction on where input services must be utilized. The Revenue's representative opposed the claim, referencing tribunal decisions like Kilburn Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli. The judge examined the arguments, noting that the definition of input services does not mandate utilization within the factory. Relying on Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules and the circular from C.B.E. & C., the judge allowed credit for security services at job-worker premises but denied credit for services utilized in guest houses based on precedent decisions.

In conclusion, the judge allowed CENVAT credit for security services at job-worker premises but denied credit for services at guest houses, aligning with the principles laid down in previous decisions. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with a partial allowance of credit.