2010 (12) TMI 251 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate - Tribunal in the case of CCE Raipur vs. Raipur Rotocast Ltd reported in 2010 (16) STR 466 wherein it has been held that insurance of the capital goods whether in the factory or in transit and similarly the group insurance of the workers and staff is very much part of the business activity and every manufacturer or service provider has to use these services for his business As regards the denial of refund relating to the group insurance/health policy is concerned it is not disputed that there is no mandatory requirement to provide such services to the employees. No doubt whatever expenses incurred for whatever benefit extended to the employees will also form part of the cost of output service. Merely because the cost of certain service form part of the output service the same cannot be treated as input service eligible for credit. - Appeal is partly allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the rejection of rebate on exported services
- Definition of input services for credit eligibility
- Consideration of group insurance, health policy, and housekeeping services as input services

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Rebate Rejection:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a rebate on services exported, specifically focusing on the denial of a refund of Rs.38,834. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Delhi.

2. Definition of Input Services:
The primary contention revolved around the definition of input services for credit eligibility. The appellant argued that the term "input service" is broad and encompasses all services connected to the business activities of the service provider. They cited precedents and emphasized that services like housekeeping were utilized as input services, linking them to management, maintenance, and repair services.

3. Consideration of Specific Services:
Regarding group insurance, health policy, and other related services, the appellant argued that these were essential for business operations and should be considered as input services. They highlighted precedents where similar services were allowed as input services, emphasizing the importance of such services in the business context.

4. Decision and Rationale:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed each service in detail. In the case of housekeeping services, the Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's decision to deny the refund, stating that housekeeping is essential before providing any service and should be considered an input service. However, concerning group insurance and health policy, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund, deeming these services as welfare measures rather than directly connected to the appellant's services.

5. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, overturning the denial of refund for housekeeping services but upholding the rejection concerning group insurance and health policy. The judgment highlighted the importance of a service's direct connection to business activities in determining its eligibility as an input service for credit purposes.