2019 (6) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er 85 and Parts of IT Racks and Accessories, and parts of Industrial Cooling Units falling under Chapter 84 of CETA 1985 and are availing the cenvat credit in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of Audit by IAP-l of Large Tax Payer Units, Bangalore for the period from December 2009 to June 2013 it appeared that the appellant had availed cenvat credit wrongly on Insurance on Public liability/Staff and Workmen compensation and Membership fee paid to various associations etc. which do not appear to qualify as input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as the said services are not used either directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of the final goods and hence the credit availed are irregular and not eligible. On these allegation, a show-cause notice dated 24.05.2017 was issued proposing to recover wrongly availed and utilized cenvat credit by the appellant on House Keeping Services and Insurance Services during the period from January 2016 to March 2017 amounting to Rs. 10,43,351/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One only) under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Medi-claim and Group Accident Policy are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product is perverse and against the facts of the case. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the proposal made in the show-cause notice inasmuch as cenvat credit on insurance services has been disallowed on grounds which are not stated in the show-cause notice. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Ganesan Builders Ltd. Vs. CST - 2019 (20) GSTL 39 (Mad.) b) CCEx Vs. Suzuki Motorcycles India Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (47) STR 85 (Tri.-Chan.) c) Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. CCEx - 2016 (43) STR 454 (Tri.-Chen.) d) Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, CU & ST - 2017 (52) STR 186 (Tri.-Hyd.) e) Fiem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCEx - 2016 (43) STR 470 (Tri.-Chen.) f) CCEx Vs. Harish Silk Mills - 2010 (255) E.L.T. 393 (Guj.) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 (349) ELT A87 (SC) g) CCEx Vs. Suncity Synthetics - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 211 (Guj.) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 (349) E.L.T. A87 (SC) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al products, up to the place of removal, and includes services used in relation to modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal; but excludes. - (A) service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of Section 66E of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services insofar as they are used for - (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or (B) Services 'provided by way of r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he exclusion clause provided in the definition of 'input service' w.e.f. 01.04.2011. These services prior to 01.04.2011 have been held to be covered by the definition of 'input service'. The Legislature in its wisdom has excluded certain services from the availment of cenvat credit w.e.f. 01.04.2011 when such services are otherwise covered by the main definition of the 'input service'. The Larger Bench in the case of Wipro Ltd. has considered the exclusion clause provided in the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) and has observed in para 7.2 as under: "7.2 It is well settled that the legislative intent cannot be defeated by adopting interpretation which is clearly against such intent. Further, we find that from the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister dated 28-2-2011 wherein the Hon7ble Minister has categorically stated that due to complexities there has been many legal issues on the availability of credit on a number of inputs or input services which are being rationalized by laying down clear definition so that the scope of inputs and input services that are eligible and those that are not, is clear. Further, we also find from the clarification issued by the ....