2012 (10) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance service - input service - manufacturing activity of the respondent was undertaken by the labourers provided by the contractor - All the labourers are covered by insurance at the cost of the contractor who paid the insurance premium - during the material period, it was a statutory requirement that all workers be appropriately insured Held that - Insurance service was indirectly related to the manufacturing activity and hence would get covered under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as an input service - burden is on the respondent to show that the insurance premium paid by the contractor was either reimbursed by the respondent/manufacturer or otherwise factored into the cost of production of the final product. If this fact is established, the respondent can be said to have received the insurance service as an input service - matter is remanded to the original authority

Summary

Issues:
- Whether insurance service received by the respondent qualifies as an 'input service' for availing Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue, with no representation from the respondent despite notice. The department's contention was that the insurance service was received by the contractor supplying laborers, not by the respondent, and thus should not be considered an 'input service.' The appellate authority, however, held that even though the service did not directly contribute to the manufacturing activities of the respondent, it indirectly aided the business activity, making the respondent eligible for Cenvat credit on the service tax paid for insurance premium.

Upon considering the submissions, the judge determined that the matter needed to be remanded. It was undisputed that the manufacturing activity of the respondent was carried out by laborers provided by the contractor who also covered them with insurance. The judge noted that during the relevant period, it was a statutory requirement for all workers to be insured, and the expenses incurred by the contractor for insurance premium would likely have been passed on to the respondent, impacting the cost of production. The judge found the insurance service indirectly related to the manufacturing activity and eligible to be considered an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, certain factual aspects needed verification, particularly whether the insurance premium paid by the contractor was reimbursed by the respondent or included in the cost of production.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The respondent was to be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and be heard personally during the readjudication process.