Refund granted for insurance, denied for works contract services & family day celebrations under CCR 2004.

The tribunal partly allowed Appeal No. ST/30910/2018, permitting the refund for professional liability insurance from ICICI Lombard and commercial liability insurance from TATA AIG but denying the refund for medical insurance from IFFCO-TOKIO and works contract services. Appeal No. ST/30911/2018 was rejected, with refund claims for works contract services and family day celebrations being denied as they fell under exclusions in Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of CENVAT credit related to General Insurance Service.
2. Refund of CENVAT credit related to Works Contract Service.
3. Refund of CENVAT credit related to Meals Coupons and food bills.
4. Refund of CENVAT credit related to Family day celebrations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of CENVAT credit related to General Insurance Service:
The appellant contested the rejection of CENVAT credit for general insurance services provided by ICICI Lombard and TATA AIG. The insurance from ICICI Lombard was for the Directors and Officers against any liability incurred during their official work, which was argued to be an input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. The tribunal agreed, citing the case of Ernst and Young Associates LLP, and concluded that the insurance was not for personal benefit but for professional liability, thus allowing the refund. However, the medical insurance provided by IFFCO-TOKIO was for the employees and their families, which was excluded under Rule 2(l) as health insurance primarily for personal use, and thus, the refund was denied.

2. Refund of CENVAT credit related to Works Contract Service:
The appellant argued that works contract services used for modernisation, renovation, or repair should be considered input services. However, the tribunal noted that the services were related to civil works and alterations, which are explicitly excluded under Rule 2(l)(A) of CCR 2004. Consequently, the refund for works contract services was denied.

3. Refund of CENVAT credit related to Meals Coupons and food bills:
The appellant did not contest the rejection of the refund related to meals coupons and food bills amounting to Rs. 899, so this issue was not further deliberated.

4. Refund of CENVAT credit related to Family day celebrations:
The tribunal found that the services procured for family day celebrations were for the personal consumption of employees and their families, not for the provision of output services. As such, these were excluded under Clause 'C' of Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004, leading to the denial of the refund.

Conclusion:
- Appeal No. ST/30910/2018: Partly allowed. The tribunal allowed the refund for professional liability insurance provided by ICICI Lombard and commercial liability insurance by TATA AIG. The refund for medical insurance by IFFCO-TOKIO and works contract services was denied.
- Appeal No. ST/30911/2018: Rejected. The refund claims for works contract services and family day celebrations were denied as they were excluded under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004.

Operative Portion:
The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.

---