Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Honda Cars India Limited vs Cce & St, Ltu Delhi on 9 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 09/09/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 09/09/2016. Excise Appeal No. 3879 of 2012 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 55-CE/APPL/LTU/2012 dated 31/08/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), New Delhi.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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 would 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 :Seen copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :Yes Department Authorities? M/s Honda Cars India Limited Appellant Versus CCE & ST, LTU Delhi Respondent
Appearance S/Shri Sahil Kohal and Puneet Agarwal, Advocates for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 53529/2016 Dated : 09/09/2016 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on medical insurance of the employees and their family members. The lower Authorities have denied the same on the ground that the services cannot be held to be eligible cenvatable input services.
2. I find issue is no more res-integra and stand settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. In the case of Micro Labs Limited vs. CCE (LTU), Bangalore reported in 2010 TIOL 1492 CESTAT BANG., service tax paid on the group insurance of the employees including their family members was held to be cenvatable, by following the earlier precedent decisions. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Honble Karnataka High Court reported as 2011 (24) S.T.R. 272 (Kar.). Apart from that there are many other decisions. Reference can be made to Honble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore II vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 514 (Kar.) and CCE, Bangalore III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.).
3. In as much as the issue settled, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
2