2019 (3) TMI 951 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - input services - insurance auxiliary service - credit in respect of SEZ unit - October, 2010 to December, 2010 - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the respondent s own case CC, CE ST, NOIDA VERSUS M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 2014 (1) TMI 261 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that even if appellant was not eligible for refund under Notification No. 9/2009, dated 3-3-2009, the appellants were certainly eligible for refund under Section 11B of the Act - credit allowed. Medical insurance services - Held that - There are different views on the issue - the respondent has failed to produce mandate of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, in that circumstance, we are not in agreement of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of KPMG 2013 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon ble President to constitute lager bench of this Tribunal to resolve the issue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent is entitled to avail credit in respect of SEZ unit.
2. Whether the respondent is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on medical insurance services or not?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to whether the respondent is entitled to avail credit in respect of the SEZ unit. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the respondent where it was held that the respondent could claim a refund under Section 11B of the Act, even if not eligible under a specific Notification. The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal in favor of the respondent, allowing them to avail credit in respect of the SEZ unit.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around whether the respondent can avail Cenvat credit on medical insurance services. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a decision by the Karnataka High Court regarding the mandate of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, which allowed credit on group insurance for employees. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in previous decisions and referred the matter to a larger bench to decide if a service provider is entitled to credit on group insurance services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's entitlement to avail credit in respect of the SEZ unit but referred the issue of availing Cenvat credit on medical insurance services for service providers to a larger bench for further clarification and resolution. The judgment was pronounced on 06/02/2019 by Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical).