2017 (12) TMI 1491 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - CENVAT credit - input services - medical insurance - penalty - Held that - the period is after 1.4.2011 and this is specifically excluded by the definition of input service and therefore, I deny CENVAT credit on this medical insurance given to the employees - Since there was lot of litigation during that time and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to evade the duty, therefore, I am of the view that penalty is not imposable on the wrongly availed CENVAT credit which is laible to be reversed. With regard to the input to the extent of ₹ 9,635/-, I allow the CENVAT credit as the same fall in the definition of input. CENVAT credit - input services - maintenance or repair of the photocopier - rent-a-cab service - information technology software service - insurance of the assets of the company - Held that - CENVAT credit on all the services allowed. Appeal allowed in pat.

Summary

Issues: Appeals against denial of CENVAT credit on certain goods and services.

Analysis:
1. Common Impugned Order: The appellants filed four appeals against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) denying credit on certain goods and services while allowing on others.

2. Identical Issue: Since the issue in all four appeals was the same, they were disposed of by a common order. The appeals covered different periods and amounts of CENVAT demand and penalties.

3. Facts of the Case: The appellant, a 100% EOU, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and services under CENVAT Credit Rules. A show-cause notice was issued for availing ineligible credit on inputs and services not related to final products. The original authority denied most of the credit and imposed penalties and interest.

4. Arguments: The appellant argued that all denied services qualified as input services under various Tribunal decisions. The Commissioner (A) wrongly denied credit on floor paint and other services, except medical insurance for employees.

5. Decision: The Commissioner (A) allowed credit on floor paint and other services, except medical insurance post-amendment. The denial of medical insurance credit was upheld due to the amendment excluding it from the definition of input service. No penalty was imposed due to lack of suppression to evade duty.

6. Operative Order: The CENVAT credit was allowed on most services, except for medical insurance for employees, in one of the appeals. The appeals were partially allowed, with a denial of credit only on medical insurance for employees.

7. Conclusion: The judgment upheld CENVAT credit on most goods and services, except for medical insurance post-amendment. The appellant's appeals were partially allowed, with credit denied only on medical insurance for employees.