2024 (7) TMI 471 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input service or not - Product Liability Insurance - place of removal - case of revenue is that the Product Liability Insurance is a service not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and clearance up to the place of removal. HELD THAT - It is seen from the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004 that the term upto the place of removal is specific to outward transportation and is not related to other services mentioned in the definition. Service like accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services etc are activities that are related to the pre and post manufacturing and clearance of the goods. They do not have any restriction for availment with regard to the place of removal or else the definition of input service would be rendered redundant in as far as these services are concerned. In fact as per explanation (BA) to rule 2(l), service of general insurance business, servicing, repair and maintenance, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle alone is not included. Since the impugned services are neither for personal consumption of staff nor are general insurance which relates to a motor vehicle, input credit cannot be denied and the impugned order merits to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal succeeds - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Availment of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on product liability insurance policy
- Interpretation of 'input service' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Admissibility of input service credit up to the place of removal

Analysis:

1. Availment of CENVAT credit on product liability insurance:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various products, availed CENVAT credit on service tax paid for product liability insurance. The issue arose when the authorities contended that the insurance service was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The appellant argued that the insurance covered risks related to product defects and financial losses, which were essential for their manufacturing process.

2. Interpretation of 'input service' under CENVAT Credit Rules:
The key contention was whether the product liability insurance service qualified as an 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The authorities argued that the service was beyond the 'place of removal,' making it ineligible for credit. However, the appellant cited previous judgments by the Tribunal in their favor, emphasizing that the insurance was crucial for covering financial risks during manufacturing.

3. Admissibility of input service credit up to the place of removal:
The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'input service' and noted that the term 'upto the place of removal' specifically pertained to outward transportation and did not restrict other services mentioned in the definition. Services like accounting, auditing, and quality control were considered essential for pre and post-manufacturing activities. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to support the appellant's claim that denying input credit for product liability insurance would be unjustified.

4. Judgment and Decision:
The Tribunal referred to its previous rulings where it allowed credit for similar insurance services related to product liability. Citing the case law and the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service,' the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted that the insurance policy addressed financial risks during manufacturing, making it an integral part of the manufacturing process. Consequently, the appeal succeeded, and the appellant was eligible for any consequential relief as per the law.