2018 (4) TMI 1306 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input service - insurance services - Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 - Held that - prior to the amendment in the definition of input service w.e.f 1.4.2011 the scope of input service was very wide and it includes all the services which fall in or in relation to the manufacture of final product - the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on insurance premium in respect of dependent/family members of the employees. Tribunal in the case of Ramboll Imisoft Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 1071 - CESTAT HYDERABAD has allowed the service tax paid on insurance premium in respect of the dependents/family members holding that it is an input service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on insurance policies under Group Insurance Scheme.
- Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of the definition of input service prior to the amendment on 1.4.2011.
- Comparison with precedent case law regarding the eligibility of insurance premium as an input service.

Analysis:
The appeal in question challenges the rejection of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on insurance policies under a Group Insurance Scheme. The appellants, manufacturers of EPABX, had availed CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on insurance policies but faced a show-cause notice claiming that the services received were not 'input services.' The original authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected it. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order failed to consider the broad definition of 'input service' under the rules. The counsel contended that group medical insurance for employees and their families constituted an essential input service, making the appellant eligible for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid. It was emphasized that the definition of input service encompassed all services related to business activities. The counsel also highlighted that the relevant period predated the amendment that excluded certain services from the definition. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Ramboll Imisoft Pvt. Ltd.:2017 (47) STR 61 (Tri.-Hyd.) to support the argument.

On the other side, the learned AR defended the impugned order, opposing the appellant's claims. However, upon careful consideration of the submissions from both parties, the Judicial Member found that before the amendment in the definition of input service from 1.4.2011, the scope was broad and covered services related to the manufacture of final products. The Judicial Member concluded that the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on insurance premiums for dependent/family members of employees. Drawing on the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of Ramboll Imisoft Pvt. Ltd., which allowed such service tax as an input service, the Judicial Member ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In the final judgment pronounced on 06/04/2018, the Judicial Member upheld the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on insurance premiums paid for dependent/family members of employees, emphasizing the broad scope of 'input service' before the 2011 amendment and aligning with the precedent established in the Ramboll Imisoft Pvt. Ltd. case.