2016 (10) TMI 791 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Outdoor Catering Service - Employees Accident Insurance Service - Whether the appellant being manufacturer is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service in terms of Rule 2(k)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate Versus M/s. Visteon Powertrain Control Systems (P) Limited, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 2015 (3) TMI 736 - MADRAS HIGH COURT relied upon - Held that - the decision of the case squarely applies to the present case where it was held that use of the outdoor catering services is integrally connected with the business of manufacturing cement and therefore, credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services would be allowable. The decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR Versus MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES 2010 (10) TMI 228 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI also relied upon where it was held that The Insurance Policy for Workmen s Compensation has been taken by the respondent to cover the risk of the workers who are involved in the manufacturing process of the final product - the respondents are entitled for Input Service Credit as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. CENVAT Credit in respect of both the services admissible - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant, as a manufacturer, is entitled to Cenvat Credit for Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service under Rule 2(k) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the rejection of the appellant's appeal regarding Cenvat Credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The central issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant, a manufacturer, for Cenvat Credit concerning Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service as per Rule 2(k) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Outdoor Catering Service was essential for business conferences, directly related to business activities. Similarly, the Employees Accident Insurance Policy was crucial for manufacturing and business operations. The counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., where all services related to business were deemed as input services. Additionally, the counsel referenced several judgments, including C.C.E., Chennai-III Vs. Visteon Powertrain Control Systems (P) Ltd., Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-II Vs. Tata Steel Ltd., and others, where credit for similar services was allowed.

On the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the rejection of the appeal.

After considering the arguments from both sides and the cited judgments, the Member (Judicial) concluded that the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service had been settled in various judgments. Aligning with the ratio of those judgments, it was held that the appellant was indeed entitled to Cenvat Credit for both services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.