TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period from April 2013 to March 2015: (i) Non-payment of service tax on Right of User (ROU) - sharing/leasing of immovable property service; Rs. 1,05,89,346/- (including cess). (ii) Non-reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit on the lease rent amount paid to M/s. HPCL during previous years and got reimbursed in the year 2013-14; Rs. 3,81,152/- (including cess). (iii) Non-payment of amount under Rule 6(3) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in respect of exempted services provided; Rs. 1,03,947/-. (iv) Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on Group Life Insurance, Group Health Insurance and Group Personal Accident Insurance services amounting to Rs. 58,775/-. (v) Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on Manpower Supply Services for Pantry Services, services received in the assessee's Guest House and for Garden Maintenance amounting to Rs. 1,91,916/-. (vi) Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on the services attributable to survey for conducting feasibility study of laying petroleum pipe lines amounting to Rs. 52,875/-. (vii) Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on the services attributable to Construction Service and Work Contract services in respect of Construction Services amounting to Rs. 52,113....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific nature of the violations of the CENVAT Credit Rules. * The short-payment / non-payment of taxes as pointed out by the Department was paid before issue of SCN. * The demand of tax is time barred in the light of the fact that the input credit availed were truly depicted in the statutory books of accounts/returns submitted to the Department, and all the relevant information was disclosed in the statutory returns submitted to the Department. The Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order confirmed the demand of ineligible credit but dropped the penalty to 50%. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the demand of Rs. 3,81,152/-/ has wrongly been confirmed by both the authorities. He also submitted that the appellant has taken land on rent from M/s HPCL on annual lease renewal basis for its station and paying the lease rent and Service Tax at applicable rates and claiming CENVAT credit for the same. During the year 2013-14, M/s HPCL raised the full invoice includin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Tax paid on group insurance services as well as manpower services received in the guesthouse. Similarly, with regard to the credit on account of guesthouse maintenance service, the Commissioner had denied the CENVAT credit on the ground that there is no direct nexus between the input service and the business activities of the appellant. Learned Counsel further submitted that CENVAT credit of Rs. 52,113/- was wrongly disallowed on the ground that credit was taken on works contract service. He further submitted that CENVAT credit of Rs. 52,875/- was wrongly denied which pertains to feasibility study for laying pipelines from Mangalore to Kannur. Learned Counsel further submitted that the entire demand is time barred and the appellant was not suppressed the material facts with intention to evade payment of tax. He further submitted that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and has maintained proper accounts and all the CENVAT credit availed has been accounted for in the books of accounts some discrepancies were noticed during the course of audit, out of which some were conceded by the appellant and amount was reversed but with regard to certain credit, the appellant contes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....insurance to employees. Since these credits were taken after the amendment vide Notification No.3/2011-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 whereby such services were specifically excluded from credit admissibility, credit was denied. The appellants cite CBEC Circular No.943/4/2011-CX dated 29.4.2011 to drive the point in their favour and argue that group insurance was provided to employees to comply with the statutory obligation and not primarily for their personal use or consumption. I disagree as the benefit can be used or consumed only by or on behalf of the insured person. I also find their reliance to CCE vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu [2011 (23) STR 44] to be inapplicable, as the Hon'ble Court dealt with a situation prior to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2011. It is seen that the provision of these services are for the consumption and personal use of employees only. It may be a welfare activity but the same is not used in or in relation to the provision of output service. The legislature has specifically excluded this service from the ambit of input services after April 2011. Also the words "activities relating to business" was removed from the definition of inpu....