2018 (2) TMI 1725 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - telephone services - insurance services - Held that - telephone service is an essential part of manufacturing activity and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on telephone service - credit allowed. Insurance services - marine specific voyage - insurance of finished goods after place of removal - Held that - The insurance policy taken for marine specific voyage and insurance for finished goods after place of removal have been excluded from the definition of input in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011 - credit not allowed. Group insurance for employees - group gratuity scheme - Held that - on group insurance for employees and group gratuity scheme the insurance taken on these has not been specifically excluded from the definition of input services with effect from 1.4.2011 - credit allowed. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on telephone services as input service.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit on insurance services for marine specific voyage and finished goods after place of removal.
3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on group insurance for employees and group gratuity scheme.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit on telephone services and insurance services in the impugned order based on Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 effective from 1.4.2011. The Tribunal acknowledged the essential nature of telephone services for manufacturing activities, emphasizing its role in facilitating production, sales, and procurement. Citing precedent (M/s Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST), the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit on telephone services due to their indispensable role in manufacturing processes.

2. Regarding insurance services, the Tribunal differentiated between services excluded from the definition of input under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 post 1.4.2011. The Tribunal noted that insurance services for marine specific voyage and finished goods post place of removal were excluded, thus disallowing Cenvat credit on these specific services. However, the Tribunal highlighted that group insurance for employees and group gratuity scheme did not fall under the excluded category, allowing the appellant to claim Cenvat credit on these services. This decision aligned with the Tribunal's interpretation in a previous case involving M/s Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit on telephone services due to their essential nature in manufacturing activities. The ruling also clarified the eligibility of the appellant to claim Cenvat credit on group insurance for employees and group gratuity scheme, emphasizing the absence of exclusion under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 post 1.4.2011. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised and aligned with established legal precedents.