Manufacturer cannot claim credit for service tax on security services for job worker's premises. Tribunal remands penalty imposition appeal.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai held that the manufacturer could not claim credit for service tax paid on security services for the job worker's premises as the input service was received by the job worker, not the manufacturer. The Tribunal found the lower appellate authority erred in setting aside the demand and interest without the respondent-assessee's appeal. Consequently, the impugned order was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the penalty imposition appeal. The Department's appeal was allowed for further proceedings, emphasizing adherence to CENVAT Credit Rules and fair hearing practices in tax disputes.

---

---

Issues:
Claim of credit of service tax paid on security services by the manufacturer for job worker's premises.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai dealt with the issue of claiming credit of service tax paid on security services by the manufacturer for the job worker's premises. The Tribunal noted that as per Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit of service tax paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product can be taken. However, in this case, it was observed that the input service had been received by the job worker and not by the manufacturer of the final product. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of the rules did not allow the credit of service tax paid on security services received by the job worker to be taken by the manufacturer. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority was deemed unsustainable.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted that despite the Department appealing to the lower appellate authority against the non-imposition of penalty, there was no appeal by the respondent-assessee before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had wrongly set aside the demand and interest in the case. Due to this error, the impugned order-in-appeal was deemed unsustainable on this ground as well. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority to reconsider the department's appeal regarding the imposition of penalty, ensuring both sides are given an adequate opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Department's appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing a clear direction for further proceedings in the case.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the claim of credit of service tax paid on security services by the manufacturer for the job worker's premises. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing in matters related to the imposition of penalties. The decision by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai underscored the significance of following legal procedures and rules while addressing tax-related disputes and appeals.

---