CENVAT credit on input services depends on documentary proof, while GTA credit needs verification of FOR destination sale terms.

CENVAT credit on input services requires proper documentary support and proof that the service expenditure was actually borne by the assessee. Credit on security services was disallowed because the invoices were in the name of the Welfare Committee and there was no adequate evidence that the assessee incurred the expense. Credit on internet and rent-a-cab services was also disallowed for lack of supporting documents. For GTA services, the denial could not be sustained without examining whether outward transportation was under an FOR destination arrangement; that issue was remanded for fresh consideration and evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit of service tax paid on security services was admissible when the invoices were not in the assessee's name and no satisfactory evidence showed that the expenditure was borne by the assessee; (ii) whether the denial of credit on GTA services could stand without examining whether the outward transportation was on FOR destination basis; and (iii) whether credit on internet services and rent-a-cab services was admissible in the absence of supporting documents.

Issue (i): Whether credit of service tax paid on security services was admissible when the invoices were not in the assessee's name and no satisfactory evidence showed that the expenditure was borne by the assessee.

Analysis: The security-service invoices stood in the name of the Welfare Committee and not in the name of the assessee. The claim that the residential colony was maintained as part of the factory was not supported by adequate proof that the entire expenditure was incurred by the assessee. In the absence of clear evidence establishing liability for the expenditure, credit could not be allowed.

Conclusion: Credit on security services was rightly disallowed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the denial of credit on GTA services could stand without examining whether the outward transportation was on FOR destination basis.

Analysis: The denial was based only on the fact that transportation was up to buyers' premises. The authorities below had not examined whether the sales were on FOR destination basis. The Board's circular clarifies that credit on GTA service is admissible where the sale is on FOR basis up to the buyer's premises, and the issue required factual verification. The matter therefore warranted remand for production of further evidence and a fresh decision.

Conclusion: The issue of credit on GTA services was remanded for fresh consideration, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether credit on internet services and rent-a-cab services was admissible in the absence of supporting documents.

Analysis: No supporting documents were produced to substantiate the claim for these services. Credit cannot be availed without proper documentary support.

Conclusion: Credit on internet services and rent-a-cab services was disallowed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order sustained the denial of credit on security, internet, and rent-a-cab services, while setting aside the GTA issue for de novo consideration with an opportunity to adduce evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit of input services requires proper documentary support and, for GTA outward transportation, admissibility depends on whether the sale is on FOR destination basis and the transportation is part of the sale arrangement.

---