TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final product. Since such service has no nexus with the manufacturing activities undertaken by the appellant, it should not be eligible for the cenvat benefit. Demand of Interest - Held that:- Since the appellant had sufficient balance in its cenvat account, it cannot be said that there is loss of revenue to the Government exchequer and for that purpose, Revenue has to be compensated by way of charging interest. Thus, interest demand cannot be confirmed against the appellant. Penalty - Held that:- There is no element of fraud, collusion, suppression etc. on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government revenue, by availing ineligible cenvat credit. Hence, imposition of penalty also is not proper and justified. Appeal al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , alleging that the premises where the security service was utilized by the appellant are not registered under the Service Tax department. The matter was adjudicated against the appellant vide order dated 9.3.2016, wherein cenvat demand of ₹ 3,21,971/- was confirmed along with interest and also equal amount of penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed against the appellant. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the unamended definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Rules (effective upto 31st March 2011), provides for the phrase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STR 88 (Tri.-Chennai). 4. On the other hand, learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since security service, in this case, has not been utilized by the appellant in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, the requirement of definition of input service has not been complied with by the appellant for availment of the cenvat benefit. Thus, he submits that the authorities below have rightly denied the cenvat benefit to the appellant. He specifically argued that the security service provided in the residential premises of the Managing Director/Directors should not be considered as input service. To support such stand, the learned AR has relied on the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the un-amended and amended definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Rules. Thus, in my considered view, the security service used/utilized by the appellant in its head office should be considered as an input service for the purpose of availment of the cenvat benefit. However, the disputed service utilized by the appellant for providing the security activities related to residential premises of its employees should not be considered as input service inasmuch as such service cannot be considered as used in relation to manufacture of the final product. Since such service has no nexus with the manufacturing activities undertaken by the appellant, it should not be eligible for the cenvat benefit. In this context, I find support from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
