2014 (4) TMI 263 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of CENVAT Credit - Service Tax paid by the insurance company on the group insurance taken by the respondent herein for his employees - Held that - first appellate authority, in this case, has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of HEG Limited 2009 (6) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and allowed the benefit of CENVAT Credit and also has relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , to hold that the respondent therein are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the services rendered by insurance company on the group insurance taken by him for his employees - No reason to interfere with decision - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on Service Tax paid by the insurance company for group insurance taken by the respondent's employees.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial), pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. Commr(A)/151/VDR-II/2011. The central issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellant to claim CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid by the insurance company for the group insurance obtained for the respondent's employees. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had based its decision on relevant legal precedents, specifically citing the Division Bench decision in the case of HEG Limited and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. These references supported the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to avail the CENVAT Credit in question.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Micro Labs Ltd, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. This additional legal precedent reinforced the Tribunal's view that the appellant's claim for CENVAT Credit was valid and in line with established legal interpretations. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification to intervene in the well-reasoned order of the first appellate authority, which had correctly applied the relevant judicial pronouncements to allow the CENVAT Credit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked merit and upheld the impugned order as legally sound and free from any defects. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the decision in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and consistent judicial interpretations in determining the eligibility of parties to claim CENVAT Credit on specific transactions involving Service Tax payments made by third parties, such as insurance companies for group insurance schemes.