2017 (6) TMI 112 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of cenvat credit - export of services - rent-a-cab services - General Insurance Services - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - denial on the ground that the said services are utilised for insuring the premises of the appellant and other properties of the appellant - Held that - the travel was not for personal purpose or for leave, vacation or home travel concession. Thus, such travel undertaken by the employees are not used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee. Therefore the exclusion part of the definition does not apply for the service availed for travel insurance of the employees in the present case. Therefore, the credit availed on such services is held to be eligible. The appellants are entitled for refund of the amount incurred on General Insurance Services and all other services except rent-a-cab services. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the appellants under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants had initially filed a refund claim for &8377; 1,74,04,236, out of which an amount of Rs. 22,66,523 was rejected after adjudication. The appellant contested only &8377; 3,57,392 related to rent-a-cab services, limiting the claim to &8377; 19,09,131 in the present appeal.

2. The Tribunal analyzed various services and their eligibility for refund. For instance, services like Air Travel Agent's Service, Banking and Financial Services, Business Support Services, Chartered Accountant Services, Commercial Training Fees, Legal Consultancy Service, Management Services, and Manpower Recruitment Services were considered eligible for refund based on their nexus with business activities. However, General Insurance Services were initially rejected but later deemed eligible as they were utilized for employee travel insurance during business purposes.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the services in question, except for rent-a-cab services, were previously considered and held eligible for refund by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case for a different period. The Tribunal acknowledged this and confirmed the eligibility of the appellant for credit/refund for most services.

4. The Tribunal specifically addressed the issue of General Insurance Services, initially rejected by the authorities. The appellant provided evidence showing that the insurance was for employee travel during business purposes, not personal use. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund for General Insurance Services and all other services except rent-a-cab services.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing a refund of &8377; 19,09,131. The impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed in the mentioned terms.