The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai remanded back the matter fro redetermination in an appeal filed by M/s. ThyssenKrupp Industries Pvt. Ltd which claimed for Cenvat Credit for group mediclaim and personal accident policy to employee.
The Appellant is registered with Central Excise for manufacturing various excisable goods viz.equipments of sugar plant, cement plant, boilers and bulk material handling systems. They are also availing the benefit of CenvatCredit scheme as provided for under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
During scrutiny of records, it was observed that the appellants have availed cenvat credit in respect of general insurance L.D. policy; special contingent policy for baggage of employees while travelling by air etc; burglary and housebreaking policy for employees; credit card policy, fidelity guarantee policy, mediclaim policy for employees and their families; personal accident policy; corporate protection policy against terrorism etc., which are not covered under the definition of ‘Input Service’.
Accordingly, two show cause notices dated 15.04.2011 and 29.08.2011 were issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the inadmissible credit of Rs.29,84,224/- availed by them during the period from October 2009 to March 2011 should not be recovered from them along with interest. The show cause notices also proposed penalty under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
The Single Bench consisting of Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that “In my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have denied Cenvat Credit in respect of group mediclaim policy and personal accident policy to the extent it pertains to the employee only. However, the case law cited above although say that the benefit should not be admissible to that part of the service which is in respect of the family members of the employees, as I do not have the breakup of the part which is in respect of the employees and that in respect of family members of the employee, the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority for determination of the credit amount which is in respect of the family members of employee.”
S. Narayanan, appeared for the appellant and P.K. Acharya, Superintendent, appeared for the Revenue.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
