9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 761 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services or not - Mediclaim and group Insurance Policies taken for its employees - period October, 2006, to September, 2011 (appellant is confining the arguments only for the claim upto 30/03/2011 i.e. pre amended period) - HELD THAT - So far as pre amended period is concerned the issue involved herein is not more res integra in view of various decisions of this Tribunal in which it has been specifically held that credit of service tax paid on group insurance premium / group mediclaim of the employee is available to the assesee / employer. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-III, COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P.) LTD. 2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that cenvat credit cannot be rejected on the group insurance health policy taken by the employer. Not only the employees only but there are decisions of the Tribunal, for the period prior to amendment, in which it has been held that even the cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance premium in respect of dependent / family members of the employee is available to the employer. Therefore it can be said that for the period prior to amendment, service tax paid on all those services which the assessee has utilized directly or indirectly in or in relation to the final product eligible as credit and merely because these services are not expressly mentioned in the definition of input service it cannot be said that they do not constitute input service. The appellant has rightly availed the cenvat credit for the period prior to 01/04/2011 and the instant appeal is allowed to that extent only.
Issues involved:
Whether the appellant rightly availed Cenvat Credit on Mediclaim and group Insurance Policies for its employees during a specific period? Analysis: 1. Issue of Cenvat Credit Eligibility: The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit on insurance policies for employees. The appellant had obtained insurance policies for employees from 2006 to 2011 and claimed Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on the premiums. The department issued a show cause notice for recovery, leading to the Adjudicating Authority confirming the disallowance of the credit along with interest and penalty. The 1st Appellate Authority also rejected the appellant's appeal. 2. Legal Interpretation: The appellant argued that they rightfully claimed credit on employee insurance services until March 31, 2011, citing the broader scope of input service before the April 1, 2011 amendment. The appellant did not claim credit post-amendment due to the exclusion of insurance services. The Company Representative relied on Tribunal decisions supporting pre-amendment credit eligibility for insurance services. The Authorised Representative for Revenue supported the impugned order's findings. 3. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal analyzed the issue for the pre-amended period and referenced various decisions supporting the availability of Cenvat Credit for service tax on group insurance premiums. Legal precedents, including the High Court of Karnataka cases, affirmed that credit for insurance policies for employees was permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that services indirectly related to the final product could constitute input services, even if not explicitly mentioned in the definition. 4. Final Decision: Based on the established legal position and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant rightfully availed Cenvat Credit for the period before April 1, 2011. The appeal was allowed for the pre-amendment period only, with any consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on January 25, 2023, in favor of the appellant. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in determining the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on insurance policies for employees and how the Tribunal interpreted relevant laws and precedents to reach a decision in this case.
|
