Manufacturer granted Cenvat Credit for Catering and Insurance Services under Rule 2(k)

The appellant, a manufacturer, was granted Cenvat Credit for Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service under Rule 2(k) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the appellant's claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The decision was based on precedents establishing that such services are eligible for credit as input services, aligning with previous judgments on similar matters.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the appellant, as a manufacturer, is entitled to Cenvat Credit for Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service under Rule 2(k) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the rejection of the appellant's appeal regarding Cenvat Credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The central issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant, a manufacturer, for Cenvat Credit concerning Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service as per Rule 2(k) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Outdoor Catering Service was essential for business conferences, directly related to business activities. Similarly, the Employees Accident Insurance Policy was crucial for manufacturing and business operations. The counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., where all services related to business were deemed as input services. Additionally, the counsel referenced several judgments, including C.C.E., Chennai-III Vs. Visteon Powertrain Control Systems (P) Ltd., Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-II Vs. Tata Steel Ltd., and others, where credit for similar services was allowed.

On the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the rejection of the appeal.

After considering the arguments from both sides and the cited judgments, the Member (Judicial) concluded that the admissibility of Cenvat Credit for Outdoor Catering Service and Employees Accident Insurance Service had been settled in various judgments. Aligning with the ratio of those judgments, it was held that the appellant was indeed entitled to Cenvat Credit for both services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---