2013 (4) TMI 241 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized credit availed on input services in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 issued under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - denial of claim as the details given in Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) were not tallied with the export documents & that Group Medical Insurance applicable to the employees and the families could not be treated as input services in respect of the Information Technology Services exported by them - Held that - The service tax paid on Group Insurance/Mediclaim Policy is eligible to be treated as input service as decided in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. 1/s. CCE, Bangalore-III 2008 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT BANGLORE , Fiamm Minda automotive Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-Ill 2011 (1) TMI 246 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Versus Micro Labs Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 115 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against rejection of refund claims for quarters ending 30.09.2008 and 30.06.2008 - Eligibility of credit on 'Group Medical Insurance' as 'input services'.

Analysis:
The appeals arose from the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the rejection of refund claims by the original authority. The respondent, a STPI unit exporting 'Information Technology Services', sought refund of unutilized credit on 'input services'. The original authority denied the claims citing discrepancies in the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) and questioning the inclusion of 'Group Medical Insurance' as 'input services' for exported services.

In the dispute over FIRC, the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the eligibility of the appellants for the refund but directed verification of the running account for invoice adjustments. Regarding 'Group Medical Insurance', the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on precedent, including the Stanzen Toyotetsu case, to uphold its classification as 'input services' for refund under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.

The department specifically appealed against the allowance of credit for 'Group Medical Insurance'. The respondent argued for eligibility based on legal precedents favoring such treatment. After considering the submissions and precedents cited, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, ultimately rejecting the department's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the eligibility of 'Group Medical Insurance' as 'input services' for refund, as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals), based on legal precedents favoring such treatment. The department's appeals were dismissed accordingly.