2019 (10) TMI 329 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - various insurance policies taken by the assessee in respect of various employees working at site - period post 1.3.2011 - Difference of Opinion among two benches - HELD THAT - There are two views expressed by the Tribunal on this point - In the case of M/S HYDUS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS CCE, C ST, HYDERABAD-II 2017 (2) TMI 538 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , the Bench has taken a view that assessee can avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on various insurance services post 01.04.2011, even after the definition of the input services under clause (c) specifically excluded the life insurance and health insurance services, if the said insurance is in pursuance to the Central Excise Act or the Acts which amended the employer to do so - At the same time, in the case of M/S. GANESAN BUILDERS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI-II 2017 (7) TMI 720 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal at Chennai took a diagonally opposive view wherein, while interpreting the same clause of the definition of Input services, it was held that CENVAT credit cannot be allowed. Since both the Benches are of the same strength and there being diagonally opposite views expressed, I refer the matter to the President, CESTAT for constituting Larger Bench to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the view expressed by Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. is correct or the view expressed by the Bench in the case of Ganesan Builders Ltd. is to be followed. Registry is directed to forward copy of this order alongwith the case laws cited to Hon ble President, CESTAT to refer the matter to Larger Bench, to decide the issue - Matter referred to Larger Bench.

Summary

Issues: Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit post 1.3.2011 on service tax paid for insurance policies for employees working at site.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAXHYD-AD1-007-17-18, dated 01.02.2018, concerning CENVAT credit eligibility post 1.3.2011 on service tax paid for insurance policies for employees.

2. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of the definition of input services post 1.3.2011. The Tribunal noted conflicting views in previous cases. In the case of Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., it was held that CENVAT credit could be claimed on insurance services post 01.04.2011 if the insurance was in pursuance of relevant Acts.

3. Conversely, in the case of Ganesan Builders Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai-II, the Tribunal held that CENVAT credit should not be allowed for similar insurance services. The conflicting decisions prompted the Tribunal to refer the matter to the President, CESTAT for constituting a Larger Bench to resolve the issue.

4. Given the contradictory opinions by different Benches, the matter was referred to the President, CESTAT for the formation of a Larger Bench to determine whether the view in Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. or Ganesan Builders Ltd. should prevail in deciding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for insurance policies post 1.3.2011.

5. The Tribunal's decision to refer the matter to a Larger Bench signifies the importance of resolving the conflicting interpretations of the definition of input services post 1.3.2011, particularly concerning the eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for insurance policies for employees. The resolution by the Larger Bench will provide clarity on this issue for future cases.