Hindustan National Glass & Industries ... vs Cce, Nashik
- CitationAppeal No. E/392/10-Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Cenvat credit denied as service tax paid on group health insurance is shown from the insurance policy itself to relate to insurance of machinery installed in the factory, the credit is admissible as service tax paid on insurance premium of machinery, and the original authority's denial on the assumption that the policy was a group health policy cannot stand without examining the policy. Where a claim for Cenvat credit on hotel expenses is supported by the assertion that the expense was incurred for a meeting between management staff and a union leader, the credit is admissible if that factual submission is established, since such an expense is then for the official use of the factory and not for personal use of employees. Where the lower authorities have decided the credit question without examining the relevant insurance policy and the factual basis of the claimed expenses, the proper course is to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in light of those documents and facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/12 &13/NSK/2010 dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nashik].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ======================================================
Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Nashik Respondent
Appearance: Mr. Pradeep Korde, Consultant for Appellant
Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commr. (AR) for Respondent
CORAM: HONBLE SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing: 15.05.2015
Date of Decision: 15.05.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Shri Ramesh Nair
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/12 & 13/NSK/2010 dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nashik, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has partly allowed the Cenvat credit on Tour Operator and disallowed the credit on Group Health Insurance Service and Entertainment Expenses Service. The issue involved in the case is that whether Cenvat credit is admissible on Group Health Insurance Service and Entertainment Expenses Service.
2. Shri Pradeep Korde, Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that as regard Group Health Insurance Service, there is apparent error right from the beginning of the proceeding that credit of Rs. 99,444/- was denied considering that the same is towards the Service Tax paid on Group Health Insurance Services, whereas the fact is that the said Cenvat credit is not on account of Group Health Insurance Services, but the same is against Insurance of machinery used in the factory of the appellant. In this support, he referred to the Insurance Policy No. 0668111189 of TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, since, the Service Tax paid on Insurance Policy of machinery, the Cenvat credit is allowable. As regard the service of Entertainment, he submits that this Entertainment Service is not availed by the employees for their personal use. But it is for a meeting held in a hotel between the union leader and the management staff for negotiating certain demands related to the employees salary, incentives etc. Therefore, these services are for official use of the factory only. Therefore, the Cenvat credit should be allowed. As regard Tour Operator Services, he submits that though the Commissioner has denied the credit of these Services, but the entire service is towards Tour Operator Service and it is only common head that is Tour Operator Service & Vehicle Maintenance Service.
3. Shri Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commr. (AR) appearing on the behalf of the revenue reiterates findings of the impugned order.
4. Considering the submission made by both the sides, I find that the lower authorities disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 99,444/- treating the service as Group Health Insurance Service, whereas it can be seen from the Insurance Policy, it pertains to the Insurance Policy of machinery installed in the factory of the appellant. If this is the fact, then the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on Insurance Premium of machineries. However, both the lower authorities could not seen the insurance Policy of machineries and the matter was decided wrongly assuming that the Insurance Policy towards Group Health Insurance Services for workers. In view on this position, the matter deserves to be remanded to the original authority.
5. As regard the Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on hotel bill, if the submission of learned consultant is found to be correct that the said hotel expenses is incurred for the meeting of management staff and union leader then the Cenvat credit should be allowed.
6. In view of my observation, I remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.
(Dictated in Court)
(Ramesh Nair) Saifi Member (Judicial)
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free