2017 (2) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... solutions to the clients abroad. They are registered with the service tax department as service provider under Information Technology Software Services. The appellants filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for an amount of Rs. 5,95,950/-. The original authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 4,15,434/- and rejected the refund of Rs. 1,80,516/-. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner Appeals) against the said order and vide order impugned herein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. Venkata Prasad explained the services which are tabulated as under: Nature of Service Submissions Credit Rejected Legal Servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....STAT-MAD 1,496/- Fixed Asset Insurance Protection of business assets is essential for provision of output service and no restriction on asset insurance 5,833/- Employee Health Insurance Services were received are as part of statutory compliance and not for primarily for personal use/consumption of employee. Relied on RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD vs CCE & ST 2016-TlOL-2392-CESTAT-MUM; FIEM Industries Ltd v. CCE 2016-TIOL-1451-CESTAT-MAD; BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs CCE 2016-TIOL-2828-CESTAT-MUM 92,518/-   Total 1,80,519/- 4. He submitted that the authorities below have rejected the refund of service tax paid in respect of the above services for the reason that the services do not have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e mobile phone is for personal use of the employee when the address shows that of the company. 7. Strong objections were put forward by the Ld. AR with regard to the refund of service tax in respect of Group Gratuity Insurance, employee deposit linked insurance and employee health insurance. He submitted that these services are excluded in the definition of input service and therefore the appellant is not eligible for refund. Though the Ld. AR has put forward strong objections there is no document before me to establish that the said services are availed for personal use or personal consumption of the employee. The Ld. Counsel for appellant explained that the group gratuity scheme is a gratuity policy for the employees of the company tak....