9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cenvat credit on insurance on assets and business activities to the tune of ₹ 2,27,123/- - Credit not allowed. Rent-a-Cab and bus pass - HELD THAT:- This falls in the definition of input service as it is directly related to the productivity of the employees working with the appellant and this facility is only from the factory to the residence of the employees and back which in my opinion falls in the definition of input service and the exclusion clause is not applicable as far as this service is concerned - Credit not allowed. Food coupons/sodexo coupons - HELD THAT:- These services are in the nature of welfare service and purely for personal consumption of employees as these are perquisites allowed to the employees. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) has given reasons for denying the cenvat credit on sodexo coupon and there are no fault in that and upheld the same - credit not allowed. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present case relates to interpretation of the definition of input service and therefore extended period cannot be invoked and penalties cannot be imposed - the demand for the normal period of one year is uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,93,952/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax under the category of service of design, development and installation of continuous processing plant. Audit of the service record of the appellant was undertaken by the Audit Commissionerate, Bangalore in the months of February and March 2016 covering the impugned period from April 2011 to December 2015 and Department entertained the view that the appellant has availed cenvat credit on certain services which do not qualify as input service . It was alleged in the show-cause notice that appellant had availed ineligible credit and the said cenvat credit of ₹ 16,52,154/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Four only) was reversed on being pointed out by the audit team and paid interest amount of ₹ 8,75,593/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three only). Appellant was issued a show-cause notice as to why an amount of ₹ 18,88,128/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight only) should not be recovered as ine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput service will be applicable only where the services listed therein are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee whereas in the present case the medical insurance is taken on the life of the Directors and foreign employees. He further submitted that Group Medical Insurance falls in the definition of input service as the same is required under a statutory obligation on the appellant. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Ganesan Builders Ltd. Vs. CST reported in 2018-TIOL-2303-HC-MAD-ST, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik 2014-TIOL-2460-CESTAT-MUM. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of. C. EX ST, LTU, Mumbai reported in 2016 (45) STR 383 (Tri-Mum.). As far as insurance on assets and business activities is concerned, he submitted that the cenvat credit pertains to insurance on travel insurance, marine and other general insurance on assets which are used for business purpose and travels are undertaken during the course of business and hence would be outside the exclusion clause. He further submitted that insurance on motor vehicle is excluded only if it relates to motor vehicles which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record, I find that as far as Group Medical Insurance is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vide Final Order No. 20450/2019 has held that cenvat credit is not permissible under the Group Medical Insurance Service. This Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Wipro Ltd. and then come to the conclusion that the impugned service falls under the exclusion clause as provided in Clause (c) of Rule 2(l). Therefore, by following the ratio of the said decision in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., I hold that the appellants are not entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid on Group Medical Insurance Service. The decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Ganesan Builders Ltd. has been distinguished by this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. As far as cenvat credit on assets and business activities is concerned, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 2,27,123/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three only) after examining the various invoices relating to cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
