TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld lead to absurd conclusions. It is inconceivable that the company provides outdoor catering to an employee who is on leave or home travel concession. Similarly it is absurd to say that the company may be providing beauty treatment or health services or plastic surgery or membership of a club, health and fitness centres etc., while the employee is in vacation or Home travel concession - the health insurance services have been clearly excluded from the Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. Invoices issued by M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- No individual has been made the beneficiary in this invoice. It is a commercial liability insurance meant for the company itself. Therefore, this is clearly not excluded under clause C of Rule 2(l) - the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit on the invoice issued by M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Invoices issued by New Vision Interiors for works contract services - HELD THAT:- All these are Works contracts and they pertain to several activities such as scaffolding for replacement of facade glass of out gate area, fixing of toughen glass etc. Therefore, they are clearly excluded in the definition of input servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surance premium has been paid for the benefit of the employees as well as their families, it specifically falls under the exclusion clause of the definition of input service under Rule 2(1) of the CCR. 2. Works Contract Service ₹ 1,52,210 On perusal of the documents i.e. copies of the invoices submitted by the appellants it was observed that, 3 out of 5 documents submitted by the appellants indicate the nature of the activity being relatable to civil works in connection with alterations/replacements undertaken on the structure of the premises of the appellants and thus fall under the exclusion clause under Rule 2(l)(A) read with explanation II to Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Meals Coupons and food bills ₹ 899 Not contested by the appellant. Total ₹ 12,20,239 APPEAL No. ST/30911/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. IFFCO TOKIO Broadridge/2016-17/2002 5. TATA AIG Invoice dated 08 June 2016 5. In respect of the invoice issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Ld. CA submits that the insurance is not for the benefit of any individual employee but it is an insurance for the Directors and their Officers against any liability which they may incur during the course of their official work. He draws the attention of the Bench to the definition of input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004, as applicable during the relevant period, as follows: (l) input service means any service (i) used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or (ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products up to the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of the provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the course of their official work. Clearly, such insurance is directly relatable to their official functions. There is no exclusion clause with respect to such insurance in Rule 2(l). Ld. DR argues on this point that the impugned order has clearly held that the general insurance in question is for covering the personal liability of individual employees and therefore is excluded by clause C of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. 7. Countering the argument, Ld. CA submits that on similar issue in respect of Ernst and Young Associates LLP as reported in [2017-TIOL-4394- CESTAT-CHD] it has been held that professional indemnity service is used by the assessee and is not excluded as an input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. 8. On examining the issue, I find that the insurance in question was not for the personal benefit of any individual or Director, it only covers any liability that may arise on them in the course of their official work. Therefore, respectfully concurring with the decision of CESTAT, Chandigarh in the case of Ernst and Young Associates (supra), I hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of CENVAT credit under Rule 2(l) and conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as leave or Home travel concession is one of the excluded categories. Other categories such as beauty treatment or health services or plastic surgery are not linked to the employee being on vacation. I, therefore, respectfully disagree with Ld. Member (Judicial) in the case of Sundaram Fasteners Limited and Fiem Industries Limited (supra). I hold that the health insurance services have been clearly excluded from the Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. Accordingly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by M/s IFFCO-TOKIO towards health insurance. 11 . Invoices issued by M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.: A perusal of these invoices clearly shows that no individual has been made the beneficiary in this invoice. It is a commercial liability insurance meant for the company itself. Therefore, this is clearly not excluded under clause C of Rule 2(l). I, therefore, find that the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit on the invoice issued by M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited. 12. Invoices issued by New Vision Interiors for works contract services: It is undisputed that all these invoices pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rejected by the lower authorities are as follows: (i) Works Contract Service: With respect to these services for the aforesaid reasons, I find that the appellant is not entitled to refund of CENVAT. (ii) Family day celebrations: A copy of the invoice issued by M/s Kethana Eternal Projects, Hyderabad based on which CENVAT Credit was claimed, shows that it is an event organised by the company for the employees and their families. It does not appear that it is meant to be an official function and for official purpose clearly the benefits of these individual employees and their families. The services include food, catering and other event management activities. In view of the above, I find that the benefits of these services have gone to the individual employees and therefore same are excluded by Clause C of Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. Accordingly, I find that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of refund of CENVAT credit on these invoices. 16. In conclusion, appeal No. ST/30910/2018 is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal No. ST/30911/2018 is rejected. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
