2023 (2) TMI 1317 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - amendment to the definition of input service at 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Service Tax paid on the Premium of Group Mediclaim Insurance policy - HELD THAT - The issue is no more re integra being decided by the Tribunal in ANDRITZ TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE 2019 (12) TMI 122 - CESTAT BANGALORE where it was held that 'cenvat credit is not permissible under the Group Medical Insurance Service.' There is no merit in the appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on the premium paid for Group Mediclaim Insurance policy post-amendment to the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant availed CENVAT credit on the Service Tax paid on the Premium of Group Mediclaim Insurance policy during the relevant period of 2015-2016. A show-cause notice was issued, alleging that the credit on the said input service was not admissible. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. The appellant argued that the insurance premium paid for personal Insurance policy fell within the exclusive clause of Rule 2(l)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Tribunal in a similar case. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The Revenue contended that the appellant wrongly availed credit of service tax paid on the premium of Group Mediclaim Insurance Policies for its employees, which was not admissible under the amended provisions of Rule 2(l) of the definition of "Input Service." The Revenue referred to judgments of the Tribunal in support of their argument. The Tribunal had previously held that CENVAT credit is not permissible under Group Medical Insurance Service in similar cases.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, addressed the central issue of whether CENVAT credit should be allowed on the premium paid for the Mediclaim Group Insurance policy post-amendment to the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. Citing previous precedents, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal based on established precedents and the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit under Group Medical Insurance Service as per previous Tribunal decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and previous judgments, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit on the premium paid for Group Mediclaim Insurance policy post-amendment to the definition of "input service."