Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 400 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Membership of Club Service - Health Insurance Service - credit denied holding that both the services are specifically excluded from the definition of input service, as stands amended, w.e.f. 1 July 2012 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Both these services are neither for the personal use of the appellant nor for consumption of any one employee, but for the welfare of the employee at large. Tribunal Hyderabad in the case of M/S HYDUS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS CCE, C & ST, HYDERABAD-II [2017 (2) TMI 538 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] has held that the group gratuity scheme for employees is a service for the welfare of the employees at large services stated in clause (c) in the input service definition are held to be excluded only when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumed by any employee Hyderabad Tribunal has denied the insurance service of all the employees if taken by the manufacturer to fall under exclusion clause of the input definition - Hon’ble Madras High Court also in the case of M/S. GANESAN BUILDERS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [2018 (10) TMI 269 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that insurance also was insured specific and not employee specific. It cannot be for personal use or for consumption of an employee manufacturer held entitled to take credit of service tax paid. Above all, there is no evidence produced by the Department to prove that even these two services were for personal use of the appellant. In absence thereof, there are no logic in the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the recovery of Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on these two services as well. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no other evidence with respect to the alleged suppression of facts or willful mis-statement on the part of the appellant. Law has been settled that the allegations as that of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement are grave allegations, mere recital thereof cannot be suffice - Apparently, there is no such evidence on record. The Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period for issue show cause notice. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|