TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounting to Rs. 16,24,896/-, in respect of Insurance policies, as discussed and held at Sl.No. (vii) and (viii) of para 14 above, alongwith interest thereon, under the provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, readwith Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 11AB ibid. I further reduce the amount of penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 15(1) ibid from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- only, as discussed & held in para 16 above. 18. The appeal filed by the appellants is thus partially allowed in above terms & the impugned Order-in-Original is modified to the above extent." 2.1 Appellants are registered with Central Excise for manufacturing various excisable goods viz. Machinery/parts/equipments of sugar plant, cement plant, boilers and bulk material handling systems. They are also availing the benefit of cenvat credit scheme as provided for under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They are also providing taxable services such as consulting engineering services, maintenance or repair services, erection, commissioning and installation services, test, inspection and certification services, commercial or industrial construction services, works contrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), submits that the appellant has taken inadmissible credit in respect of the two services which have been disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He would rely upon the following decisions in his support. • Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)] • Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. [2013 (32) STR 482 (Tri.-Bang.)] • Sundaram Brake Linings [2014 (34) STR 583 (Tri.- Chennai)] • Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. [2014 (34) STR 309 (Tri.-Del.)] • Emerson Export Engineering Centre [2017 (49) STR 423 (Tri.-Mumbai)] • Titan Industries Ltd. [2018 (15) GSTL 75 (Tri.-Chennai)] • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017 (47) STR 273 (Tri.-Chan.)] • Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (364) ELT 1019 (Tri.- Mumbai)] • Manikgarh Cement [2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom.)] • Mahindra Sona Ltd. [2016-TIOL-1174-CESTAT-MUM]. Accordingly he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 For disallowing the cenvat cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....policies as discussed at paras (ii) and (xiv) of para 14 above, only to the extent that it covers the appellants' company/business area only. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall re-quantify the amount of Cenvat credit eligible to the appellants in respect of service tax paid on the policies as discussed at paras (ii) and (xiv). However, as regards the Service Tax paid on insurance charges relating to policies as discussed at paras (vii) and (viii), I hold that the appellants are not eligible to avail credit, as the same are not in relation to business activities of the appellants, but are in the nature of welfare measures or perquisites to their employees and hence to that extent the adjudicating authority has correctly disallowed the Cenvat credit & ordered its recovery alongwith interest and hence the impugned Order-in-Original is upheld to that extent." 4.3 The issue in respect of the admissibility of cenvat credit in respect of group mediclaim policy and personal accident policy is no longer res integra for the period prior to the amendments made in April 2011 to the Cenvat Credit Rules. Admittedly in this case the entire period of dispute is pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to quantify the eligible Cenvat credit." 4.5 In the case of Titan Industries Ltd. [2018 (15) GSTL 75 (Tri.-Chennai)], the Tribunal has observed as follows:- "5. In the reply to the show cause notice, it is submitted by the appellant that the insurance services for health/mediclaim policy was availed for the company's staff and employees and their family members. The payment of premium as well as the service tax paid on such premium pertaining to the dependents/family members of the employees cannot be considered to be activities directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture. Whether the policy covers the entire family with the single premium or whether separate premium has been paid for each dependent has to be verified. The Ld. Counsel has not been able to produce any document in this regard. We therefore deem it fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to analyse the issue afresh after verification of the documents produced by the appellant. The adjudicating authority shall also take into consideration the case laws in respect of the said issue." 4.6 In the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (364) ELT 1019 (Tri.-Mumbai)], the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Courts in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel. 4.8 Thus in view of the above referred decisions, in my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have denied Cenvat Credit in respect of group mediclaim policy and personal accident policy to the extent it pertains to the employee only. However, the case law cited above although say that the benefit should not be admissible to that part of the service which is in respect of the family members of the employees, as I do not have the breakup of the part which is in respect of the employees and that in respect of family members of the employee, the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority for determination of the credit amount which is in respect of the family members of employee. 4.9 On issue of limitation I find that the facts in respect of availment of Cenvat Credit in respect of these services was in the knowledge of the Revenue, neither the show cause notices nor the order-in-original have given any reason for invoking extended period of limitation. The adjudicating authority has in para 21, only recorded as follows:- "21. In view of above discussions & findings I hold that the asse....