Appeal Allowed for Security Services, Denied for Packaging. Credit Allocation for Telephone & Account Services. Penalties Waived.

The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, disallowing Cenvat credit on packaging services but permitting it for security services. Proportionate credit allocation was advised for telephone and chartered account services. Penalties were waived due to the appellant's reasonable belief in the admissibility of the credit.

---

---

Issues involved: Eligibility of appellant to avail Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on Packaging Services, Security Services, Telephone Services, and Chartered Account Services.

Analysis:

1. Packaging Services: The appellant argued that they availed packaging services to protect their brand name and trade mark, essential for their output service as Intellectual Property Right. They presented legal advice supporting their claim. However, the tribunal observed that the opinion obtained did not specify any obligatory provision requiring the appellant to use the trade mark directly. Therefore, the packaging services were considered to be utilized for making tea bags, not directly or indirectly for maintaining or protecting the trade mark. Consequently, Cenvat credit on packaging services was disallowed.

2. Security Services: According to Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, full credit of security services is permissible if not exclusively used for exempted goods or services. The tribunal found that the appellant correctly availed the credit for security services as they met the conditions specified under the rule.

3. Telephone Services & Chartered Account Services: These services were used for both trading activities and providing Intellectual Property Right services. As separate figures were unavailable, the tribunal suggested the appellant take proportionate value-wise credit for these services used commonly in both activities and pay the remaining amounts with interest.

4. Extended Period: The department detected improper credit taken by the appellant, leading to the applicability of the extended period. However, as the appellant had a reasonable case to believe the credit was admissible, penalties were set aside under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's appeal was partly allowed based on the observations made.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, disallowing Cenvat credit on packaging services but permitting it for security services, while advising proportionate credit allocation for telephone and chartered account services. Penalties were waived due to the appellant's reasonable belief in the admissibility of the credit.

---