COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. DIAMOND CEMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard both the sides on the appeal of the Revenue against extension of credit of Rs. 50,542/ - in respect of security services which had been disallowed by the adjudicating authority on those bills which did not provide specific name and address and reduction in penalty in terms of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

(2.) THE objection of the Revenue to credit being extended to security services is on the basis that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on the strength of the certificate produced by the respondents from the service provider M/s. Pink City Security Service to the effect that they had provided service to the respondents and that the said certificate was a new evidence brought for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has erred in relying on it in view of the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, which clearly prohibit production of additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals).