9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1200 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Insurance service during the month of February, 2011 - denial on account of nexus - Held that - This issue has been laid to rest by the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , as well as the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of CESTAT in Ramboll Imisoft Pvt Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 1071 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where it was held that the group insurance services availed for the benefit of employees qualify as input services - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of input service tax credit on Insurance service for payment of duty. 2. Confirmation of demand/recovery of ineligible CENVAT Credit under CCR. 3. Imposition of interest and penalty under relevant provisions. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of input service tax credit on Insurance service for payment of duty The case revolved around the appellant's utilization of input service tax credit on Insurance service without informing the Department about the nature and utility of the service in their ER-1 returns. The Revenue contended that the input service was not used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of finished goods, making it ineligible for availing CENVAT Credit. The Show Cause Notice led to the confirmation of demand/recovery of the ineligible CENVAT Credit, along with interest and penalty. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that similar issues had been decided in their favor in previous cases. The Ld. Advocate presented various judgments supporting the appellant's contentions. Ultimately, the Tribunal referred to past decisions, including the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and CESTAT Chennai rulings, to conclude that the issue had been settled. Citing a specific case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid for insurance service was permissible. Issue 2: Confirmation of demand/recovery of ineligible CENVAT Credit under CCR The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and recovery of the ineligible CENVAT Credit under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The Order-in-Original also imposed interest under Section 11AA of the Act and an equal penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CCR read with Section 11AC of the Act. The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, upheld the demand and interest but set aside the penalty. The appellant, being aggrieved by the confirmation of demand and interest, appealed to the Tribunal. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the documents and decisions cited, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. Issue 3: Imposition of interest and penalty under relevant provisions The imposition of interest and penalty was a significant aspect of the case. While the demand and interest were initially confirmed, the penalty was set aside by the Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals-II). The Tribunal, after examining the arguments and legal precedents, decided to allow the appeal, thereby overturning the decision on demand and interest. The Tribunal's decision resulted in the appellant being granted consequential benefits, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant regarding the imposition of interest and penalty under the relevant provisions. Overall, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of eligibility of input service tax credit, confirmation of demand/recovery of ineligible CENVAT Credit, and the imposition of interest and penalty under the relevant provisions. The decision was based on legal precedents and past rulings, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential benefits for the appellant.
|
