CCE Vs. GODREJ SARA LEE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents are not present.

(2.) There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao appearing for the Department. In this case the Respondent -manufacturer has claimed credit of service tax paid on security services for the job workers premises. 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 final product can be taken. In the present case, the input service has been received by the job worker and not by the manufacturer of the final product. As such, a plain reading of the provisions of the rules does not allow credit of service tax paid on security services received by the job worker to be taken by the Respondent -manufacturer. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority cannot be sustained. I also find that even though the Department had gone in appeal to the lower appellate authority against non -imposition of penalty and there was no appeal by the Respondent -Assessee before the lower appellate authority, he has wrongly set aside the demand and interest in this case. On that ground also the impugned order -in -appeal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order -in -appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded the lower appellate authority to consider the departments appeal afresh in regard to imposition of penalty after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides. The Departments appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.