2019 (8) TMI 1451 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Term Insurance Policy on the life of the Managing Director - whether these policies are taken by the appellant company which is the Policy Holder in the policy in question and whether the policy was taken in respect of Keyman-person ? - HELD THAT - It is clearly mentioned in the policy documents that the benefit under the policy in question is payable to the policy holder appellant company. Nomination is generally required to get benefit of the policy. Where the policy holder is a company under the Company Act (having perpetual existence) in such cases no nomination is required. Thus the Court Below was in error in imposing demand along with interest under Section 75 ibid and holding that the appellant company is not the beneficiary in the policy. The appellant is entitled to benefit of cenvat credit under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules on the Keyman Insurance - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the cenvat credit taken on the "Term Insurance Policy" for the Managing Director is valid.
2. Determination of the nature of the insurance policy as a Keyman policy.
3. Interpretation of the benefit clause in the policy documents.
4. Applicability of nomination requirements for policy benefits.
5. Consideration of company as the policy holder for Keyman insurance.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the validity of cenvat credit taken by the appellant company on a "Term Insurance Policy" for the Managing Director, questioning whether the policy qualified as a Keyman policy. The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of litigation, it was established that the policy in question was not a Keyman policy based on the absence of such indication in the cover note. Consequently, the matter was remanded for fresh determination by the Original Adjudicating Authority.

Upon remand, the Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the cenvat credit, emphasizing that the policy was on the life of the Managing Director and did not meet the criteria of a Keyman Insurance Policy. The appellant cited relevant case laws to argue that Keyman Insurance Policy should not be excluded from the definition of "input service." Additionally, it was highlighted that the policy's benefit clause did not specify any nominee, indicating that the benefits would accrue to the policy holder or the spouse, not the appellant company.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, pointing out that if the intention was to benefit the firm, the company would have been named as the nominee in the policy. However, the appellant contested this decision before the Tribunal, asserting that the policy clearly stated the benefit would accrue to the appellant company as the policy holder, especially as evidenced by the Board Resolution authorizing Keyman insurance for the Managing Director.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the benefit under the policy was indeed payable to the appellant company, as stated in the policy documents. It clarified that in cases where the policy holder is a company under the Company Act, no nomination is required to receive policy benefits. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to the cenvat credit under the relevant rules for Keyman Insurance, modifying the impugned order accordingly.