2016 (11) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of CENVAT Credit - input services - Health Insurance services - Air Travel Services - Held that - I find that in the aforesaid judgments both these services are considered to fall within the scope of definition of input services as business activity defined under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Therefore, I do not have any hesitation to follow the said decisions and hold that Credit is admissible on these input services. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Health Insurance and Air Travel Services

Analysis:
- The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the recovery of CENVAT Credit on input services such as Health Insurance and Air Travel Services for the period Sep.2006 to April 2011.
- The Appellant argued that the Credit availed was primarily on employees' medical insurance and personal accident insurance services, which had been allowed in previous Tribunal cases such as CCE Chennai Vs M/s Sundaram Clayton Ltd and CCE Banglore Vs M/s Millipore India Ltd.
- The Appellant also cited a Tribunal case, John Deree India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III, which held that CENVAT Credit on Air Travel Agents was admissible.
- The Revenue, represented by the Authorised Representative, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
- The Member (Judicial) found that the input services in question fell within the scope of the definition of input services as business activity under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 based on the previous Tribunal judgments.
- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law.

This judgment highlights the importance of precedent in determining the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on specific input services such as Health Insurance and Air Travel Services. The decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of input services under the relevant rules and previous Tribunal cases that supported the Appellant's position. The Member (Judicial) emphasized the need to follow established decisions and held that the Credit was admissible on the mentioned input services, ultimately overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order and granting relief to the Appellant.