2011 (2) TMI 786 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit on inputs services - insurance services - Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - authority holding that such insurance services are not connected with the manufacture or sale of cement or with other business activities as defined under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 denied the credit - Held that - the insurance policy has been used to cover expenses relating to pay-roll when the production is stopped on account of damages of machinery or plant and therefore the insurance policy to cover loss of profit would come within the expression for activities relating to business in the inclusive limp of the definition of input services - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding insurance services as input services for cement manufacturers.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the department against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the denial of CENVAT credit on insurance services availed by a cement manufacturer. The manufacturer had taken insurance to protect against business interruptions due to various perils like fire, riot, and terrorist attacks. The original authority denied the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The department argued that the insurance did not have a direct nexus with manufacturing and sale activities. They cited precedents before the Tribunal and High Court where similar issues were challenged. The manufacturer, on the other hand, supported the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the terms of the insurance policy.

Upon careful consideration, the judge referred to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which defines "input service." The rule includes services related to setting up, modernization, renovation, or repairs of a factory, among others. The judge noted that insuring plant and machinery against potential disruptions and loss of profit due to business stoppages from perils like fire and riots is a precautionary measure for safeguarding the business financially. The judge agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the insurance policy covering loss of profit during production stoppages due to machinery damages falls under "activities relating to business" as per the definition of input services.

Ultimately, the judge found no valid reasons to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and rejected the department's appeal. The cross objection supporting the Commissioner's decision was also disposed of accordingly.