Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hpcl vs Cce, Visakhapatnam-I on 6 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing:06/09/2013
Date of decision:06/09/2013
Application No.E/EH/26852/2013; E/Stay/1547/2011
Appeal No.E/2524/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-original No.35/2011(MP) dt. 30/05/2011 passed by CCE&C, Visakhapatnam-I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. HPCL
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Visakhapatnam-I
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. G. Shivadass and Ms. Sandhya, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No.26533/2013 [Per M.V.Ravindran] This miscellaneous application is filed by the Revenue for out-of-turn hearing of the stay petition filed by the assessee. Since the amount involved in this case is substantial, we allow the application for out-of-turn hearing of the stay petition and take up the stay petition for disposal.
2. This stay petition is filed for waiver of predeposit of the amount of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant during the period April 2006 to March 2010.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of denial of CENVAT credit availed on the ground that the appellant has availed the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by insurance service providers on the group insurance taken out for their employees. After hearing both sides for sometime on the issue, we find that the matter is covered by the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka, accordingly after allowing the stay application and waiving the condition of pre-deposit of amounts involved, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.
5. On perusal of the records, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel that the denial of CENVAT credit is on the service tax charged on insurance and health insurance benefits has been incorporated in inputs service definition w.e.f. 01/04/2011. It is his submission that there is no dispute that the CENVAT credit which has been availed is on service tax paid on the group insurance policies. He is correct in stating that the view of the Tribunal in the case of Micro Labs Ltd. Vs. CCE(LTU), Bangalore [2010-TIOL-1492-CESTAT-BANG] was upheld by the Honble High Court of Karnataka, in an appeal filed as reported in 2011(270) ELT 156 (Kar.). On perusal of the said judgment of the Honble High Court and order of the Tribunal in the case of Micro Labs Ltd., we find that the issue in that case is identical to the issue in this appeal. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honble High Court, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
6. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) (M.V.RAVINDRAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Nr
3