2016 (7) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - input services of manpower supply services for the benefit of employees - The Revenue is of the view that manpower that has been supplied by the service provider, consists of Nurses and Doctors and hence it falls under Exclusion Clause category of the definition of Rule 2(l)(C) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. - Held that - It is can be seen from the above reproduced clause both the authorities are relying Exclusion clause which provides for excluding cenvat credit in respect of health services; in the entire provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, there is no definition of health services. At the same time, it is also being undisputed that the posting of Doctors and Nursing staff is at the behest of the appellant in order to comply with statutory obligation under the Factories Act, 1948 and Mines Act 1952, the same cannot be considered as the procurement from personal consumption of the workers. - Credit allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service during January 2013 to June 2013.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of availing cenvat credit for the service tax paid on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service during a specific period. The Revenue argues that the service provider supplied manpower consisting of Nurses and Doctors, falling under the Exclusion Clause of Rule 2(l)(C) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. Both lower authorities upheld the denial of cenvat credit, leading to the imposition of a penalty by the adjudicating authority.

The appellant's counsel argues that the posting of medical professionals in the factory is mandatory under the Factories Act, 1948, and Mines Act, 1952. They contend that the services of the Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency were sought to comply with these statutory provisions, and the Doctors and Nurses provided were utilized in the factory for the manufacture of the final product, cement. Reference is made to a previous Tribunal decision in their favor for a different period, emphasizing that the lower authorities deviated from this precedent based on the Exclusion Clause under Rule 2(l)(C). The counsel asserts that the exclusion clause does not apply to services provided for statutory compliance and are not for personal consumption.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal focuses on the Exclusion Clause under Rule 2(l)(C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The clause excludes cenvat credit for services related to health services, but there is no specific definition of health services in the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal notes that the posting of Doctors and Nurses was at the request of the appellant to comply with statutory obligations, not for personal consumption. Reference is made to a previous Tribunal decision to support this interpretation, emphasizing that exclusion clauses do not apply when services are provided for legal obligations rather than personal use.

In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the denial of cenvat credit based on the Exclusion Clause is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed in favor of the appellant.