2015 (1) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - outdoor catering and medi-claim insurance services - outdoor catering service was received in the head office - Medi-claim insurance service, is provided only to the retired employees - Held that - even in the head office manufacture related activities take place and therefore the entire credit cannot be denied. As regards insurance the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Even though the premium is paid in respect of retired employees, it is paid according to the agreement entered into with the employees during their service period. Therefore a conclusion arises that obligation arose when the employees rendering the service and contributing to the manufacturing unit of the appellant. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit in respect of outdoor catering and medi-claim insurance services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought condonation of a 4-day delay in filing appeals due to a delay in obtaining a Demand Draft (DD) as banks were not operational. The Tribunal, satisfied with the reasons provided, allowed the applications for condonation of delay.

2. The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit concerning outdoor catering and medi-claim insurance services. The denial of credit of over 18 lakhs was based on the grounds that outdoor catering service was received at the head office, and the medi-claim insurance service was provided only to retired employees. The appellant argued that manufacturing-related activities also occurred at the head office, justifying the credit. Additionally, the appellant contended that the insurance premium paid for retired employees was part of an agreement made during their service period, linking it to their contribution to the manufacturing unit.

3. The Tribunal found the issue to be debatable, requiring further detailed consideration. The appellant's arguments were supported by decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it a fit case for the waiver of pre-deposit and granted a stay against recovery during the pendency of appeals for both the appellants.

This judgment highlights the Tribunal's decision to allow the condonation of delay in filing appeals and the consideration of the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit regarding outdoor catering and medi-claim insurance services, ultimately granting a waiver of pre-deposit and a stay against recovery during the appeal process.