2018 (6) TMI 1000 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - The present appeal could not be disposed of due to the reason that the same was not listed along with the Appeal No. ST/90153/2014 on 12th January 2018 - Held that - No separate order is required to be made in the present appeal as the entire issue against the common order-in-original has been disposed of in the case of TOYO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II 2018 (4) TMI 605 - CESTAT MUMBAI - the present appeal is also disposed of in terms of the above order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of appeal due to common order-in-original
2. Eligibility of credit on Mediclaim Insurance Policy under "Input Services"

Issue 1: Disposal of appeal due to common order-in-original
The appellant filed two appeals against a common order-in-original dated 28.08.2014. One appeal was disposed of earlier, and the present appeal was not listed with it on 12th January 2018. Both parties agreed that the issue in the present appeal had already been decided in the earlier appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to make a separate order and disposed of the present appeal on the lines of the earlier order passed in Appeal No. ST/90153/2014.

Issue 2: Eligibility of credit on Mediclaim Insurance Policy under "Input Services"
The appellant was issued show cause notices proposing to disallow the cenvat credit availed on Mediclaim Insurance Policy for employees and their family members. The adjudicating authority held that the Health Insurance Policy was not an input service for the appellant's output services, leading to the recovery of credit and imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that the service was used in relation to business and relied on judgments supporting the eligibility of credit on similar services. The Tribunal found that the credit on the Mediclaim and Health Insurance Services was available before March 2011, citing previous judgments. The Tribunal also referenced a case where Cenvat credit could not be denied for insurance covering dependents of insured employees. Consequently, the Tribunal held the appellant liable for credit before March 2011 and set aside penalties imposed after that period due to the reversal of credit and absence of suppression or malafide intention. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the present appeal based on a previous order and allowed the credit on Mediclaim Insurance Policy as an input service before March 2011, setting aside penalties imposed after that period.