Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 181 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - Group Medical Insurance Service - Transportation of employees - Staff Transportation facility service - Catering service/Lunch & Banquet/Lunch Coupon - extended period of limitation - penalties. Group Medical Insurance - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the case of BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE NORTH WEST COMMISSIONERATE [2019 (6) TMI 67 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that cenvat credit is not permissible under the Group Medical Insurance Service. This Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the impugned service falls under the exclusion clause as provided in Clause (c) of Rule 2(l) - appellants are not entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid on Group Medical Insurance Service. Catering Service - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. WIPRO LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-III. [2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal after considering the exclusion clause provided in Clause (c) w.e.f. 01.04.2011 has held that Outdoor Catering Service is not eligible for input service credit post amendment dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, credit on Catering Service rightly denied. Transportation of Employees - HELD THAT:- This falls under 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 falls in the definition of ‘input service’ and the exclusion clause is not applicable as far as this service is concerned - the appellants are entitled to cenvat credit of service tax on this service. Extended period of limitation - penalty - 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 upheld and invocation of extended period is not tenable in the present case - the penalties under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC (1)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 also set aside - the matter is remanded back to the original authority to re-quantify the demand for the normal period with regard to all the impugned services which the appellant is liable to pay - Appeal allowed in part by way of remand.
|