AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltant on the behalf of appellant and Shri M R Melvin Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue. 4.0 Arguing on behalf of Appellant, Consultant submitted that appellant has taken the said group insurance policy for its employee for medical claim, personal and vehicle insurance from M/s National Insurance Company Limited and was paying the premium against the said policies and received invoices/ policy documents showing the amount of premium and service tax paid. Appellant has taken the credit of the Service Tax so paid. Since the said services have not been used for personal consumption of employee's the same would not fall within the exclusion category from the definition of "input service" under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. For claiming the credit in respect of group insurance services he relied on the following decisions: i. CCE vs Stanzen Toyotesu Pvt Ltd [2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar)] ii. Honda Motorcycle & Scoote (I) Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi [2016 (45) STR 397 (Tri)] iii. Hindustan Zinc Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur [2015 (38) STR 608 (T)] iv. Deloitte Support India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2017 (5) GSTL 393....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....list of services". 5.2 He further stated that the group insurance policy in this case not only covered the employees but also the family members of the employee, and hence the said policy can be termed as policy for consumption of the employee. Accordingly he submitted that the said service shall be hit by the exclusion credit in the definition of the Input Service and hence no CENVART Credit shall be available in respect of the said services. He relied upon the following decisions in his favour: i. SEMCO Electric Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - I [2012 (276) ELT 94 (T)] ii. John Dere India Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III [2016 (41) STR 990 (T)] iii. Infosys Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (37) STR 862 (T)] iv. AET Laboratories Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise & ST Hyderabad [2016 (42) STR 720 (T)] 5.3 On issue of limitation he relied upon the decision of tribunal in case of NGK Infrastructure Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Ghaziabad [2016 (41) STR 299 (Tri)] 6.0 The definition of input service as it existed prior to and post amendments made 2011 is reproduced below for ready reference in tab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle except when used for the provision of taxable services for which the credit on motor vehicle is available as capital goods; or (C) such as those provided in relation to outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, membership of a club, health and fitness centre, life insurance, health insurance and travel benefits extended to employees on vacation such as Leave or Home Travel Concession, when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee; From the above table it is evident that in view of the amendments made in the definition of input services in the year 2011, the phrase "activities relating to business" appearing in inclusive part of the definition has been deleted, and an exclusion clause specifying the services that are to be excluded from the definition of the input services has been added. Undisputedly the period under consideration is from July 2014 to October 2015. Hence it is to be examined whether the group insurance services provided by the appellant to his employees and their family member will be covered by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wise and has concluded that the said policy is for the personal consumption of employee. The said para 20 is reproduced below: "20 The various aspects of this policy have been examined to determine that whether the policy is primarily for personal consumption of the employees or not. The following aspects of the policy indicate that the policy is not for the personal use of employees: • The fact that the insured's name in the policies is that of the notice • Fact that the policy is providing insurance cover for the purpose of Accident, Death and Health which serves to provide risk cover to the notice in case of any unforeseen risk which the employees of notice face during the course of manufacture of final goods • Payment aspects of the policy, namely the fact that the Name of policy is routed through the notice. • However, the following aspects/ features of the policy are in favour of personal consumption of the employees: • Provision of Maternity benefit in the policy which does not appear to be related to manufacture of goods • Extension of Insurance benefits to the dependants (Spouse and Children) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017 (5) GSTL 393 (Tri) Prior to 2011 2016 (45) STR 397 (Tri)] Post 2011 Credit allowed holding that it was a legal requirement under ESI Act to provide insurance cover to employees. However as per the definition of input services under Rule 2(l), these services are excluded from definition of input services if meant primarily for personal consumption of employee. In the present case when the finding of fact has been rendered that the insurance services were meant primarily for personal consumption of employees, these decisions are not material and distinguishable. 2017 (47) STR 85 (Tri)] Post 2011 2012 (276) ELT 94 (T) Post 2011 CENVAT credit in all the said cases have been denied in respect of the insurance services on the ground that the said services are not used in or in relation to manufacture of finished products. In cases where the credit has been allowed, the credit in respect of that part of services which is for providing insurance cover to family members of employees have been denied. None of these decisions have dwelled on the phrase "primarily for the personal consumption of employee" use in the amended definition of the "input service" fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ify to be input services under the definition of input services as amended in 2011. Hence credit in respect of the said insurance services is not admissible. 13. Appellant have raised the issue of limitation and have argued that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case and have relied upon the various decisions mentioned in para 4.2 (supra). Relying on the decision in case of NGK Infrastructure (supra) learned A R argued that extended period has been rightly invoked ion the present case. For invoking of extended period of limitation, it has to be shown that certain material facts were suppressed by the appellant, to claim the benefits that were not due to him. Adjudicating Authority has in para 27 of his order observed as follows: "The knowledge of the fact relating to intent of the notice is available only with the notice. Further, the noticee claimed that they have regularly filed monthly excise returns. Further they have made reversals regularly as per the applicable provisions. However, in none of these instances, it could be brought forth to the department that whether CENVAT Credit availed by the noticee is admissible or not. The noticee ha s ....