Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1357 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - service tax paid on insurance premium for availing medi-claim facility for employees who had opted for ‘Voluntary Separation Scheme’ - conflicting views - Larger Bench Decision - HELD THAT:- The two issues that have been referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal are, therefore, answered in following manner: (i) The answer to the first issue would be: a. The Bombay High Court in M/S. COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III [2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CCE, NAGPUR VERSUS ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has settled the interpretation of ‘input service’ in rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules, as it stood prior to its amendment on 01.04.2011; b. The definition of input service can be effectively divided into the following five categories. c. So far as it concerns the dispute raised in this appeal, the definition would cover not only ‘input services’ which have a nexus with the manufacture of the final product (covered by the first limb in the definition), but also other ‘input services’, which do not have such a nexus but are covered by either of the other four limbs of the definition; d. Each limb of the definition is independent and benefit of CENVAT credit would be available even if any one of them is satisfied; e. So far as the first limb is concerned, the requirement of establishing a nexus between the ‘input services’ and the process of manufacture would stand satisfied if the expenditure incurred for the ‘input service’ forms part of the cost of production/value of the final product on which duty of the excise is levied; f. In this view of the matter, the appellant would be entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on insurance premium for employees who had opted for the ‘Voluntary Separation Scheme’; and (ii) Cost Accounting Standard-4 would be applicable for determination of eligibility to CENVAT credit even if the goods are not captively consumed. The papers of this appeal may now be placed before the Division Bench for deciding the appeal on merits.
|