2016 (2) TMI 336 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - eligible input services after amendment - outdoor catering services, life insurance and premium - Held that - there is specific exclusion in respect of outdoor catering service and various other services including life insurance when such services are used for primarily or personnel use of consumption of any employee in the case as per the case records the services of outdoor catering and the life insurance services were clearly received for personal use of employees is not controverted in the grounds of appeal. - Credit cannot be allowed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services and life insurance post amendment to definition of input services.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellants for service tax liability on outdoor catering services and life insurance post the amendment to the definition of input services. The lower authorities rejected the contention based on the amended definition, which excluded services primarily used for personal consumption by employees. The appellant argued that the services were related to business activities and cited a previous case where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar situation. The appellant highlighted that the cost of canteen and life insurance services was included in the value of services rendered. However, the departmental representative supported the lower authorities' findings.

Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the main issue was the eligibility of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on outdoor catering and life insurance services post the amendment to the definition of input services. The definition of input services during the relevant period specifically excluded services like outdoor catering and life insurance when primarily used for personal consumption by employees. The services in question were clearly received for personal employee use, as per the case records, which was not disputed. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal based on this exclusion clause, emphasizing that the services must be used for company operations, not personal employee consumption, to be eligible for Cenvat credit.

The appellate tribunal noted that the exclusion clause in the definition of input services would prevail in such circumstances, as the services of outdoor catering and life insurance were primarily for personal employee use. Referring to a previous judgment where the Tribunal ruled similarly, the tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct and legally sound, warranting no interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on merits.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the exclusion of outdoor catering and life insurance services from Cenvat Credit eligibility when primarily used for personal employee consumption, emphasizing the need for services to be related to company operations to qualify for credit. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legal provisions and factual circumstances of the case, ensuring adherence to the statutory definition of input services.