Tribunal grants appeal on cenvat credit denial, remands for fresh decision.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant concerning the denial of cenvat credit on various taxable services. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after granting the appellant a hearing opportunity. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the eligibility for cenvat benefit on security agency service.

---

---

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit on various taxable services

Commercial & Industrial Construction Service:
The Department denied service tax benefit on services like commercial & industrial construction, rent-a-cab, security agency, site formation, Earth moving, demolition, and club & association services, stating they do not meet the definition of input service in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that credits availed before 31.03.2011 should be allowed, citing unamended rules. The Tribunal found that construction service was only excluded from the definition of input service from 01.04.2011, so credits taken before that date should be valid. However, the period of availing credit needs verification by the original authority.

Rent-a-Cab Service:
The appellant claimed that the entire credit for rent-a-cab service was availed before 31.03.2011 and should be considered an input service. Referring to a Tribunal decision, the appellant argued for credit eligibility. The Tribunal agreed that the period of availing credit needs verification by the original authority for proper assessment.

Security Agency Service:
The appellant contended that the issue was settled by a Tribunal decision and should be eligible for cenvat benefit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, extending the cenvat benefit on security agency service.

Site Formation & Clearance, Excavation, Club or Association Service:
The authorities did not address whether these services qualify as input services for cenvat benefit. The Tribunal directed the original authority to verify the period of availing cenvat credit and eligibility for these services, except for security agency service.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after giving the appellant a hearing opportunity. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant regarding security agency service. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly.

---