Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Geojit Financial Services Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Tax & Central ... on 8 February, 2023
Service Tax Appeal No. 20401 of 2021
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 20401 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. COC-EXCUS-000-APP-
272-2021 dated 16/03/2021 passed by Commissioner of
Central Tax (Appeals), COCHIN. )
M/s. Geojit Financial
Services Limited
(Formerly known as Geojit BNP
Paribas Financial Services Ltd.) Appellant(s)
34-659-P, Civil Line Road
Padivattom
KOCHI - 682024
KERALA
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Central Tax
& Central Excise, Cochin
C.R. Buildings, I.S Press Road Respondent(s)
Cochin - 682018 Kerala APPEARANCE:
Shri Jose Jacob, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri K. A. Jathin, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE Dr. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Final Order No. 20266 / 2023 Date of Hearing: 08/02/2023 Date of Decision: 08/02/2023 Per : DR. D.M.MISRA This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. COC-
EXCUS-000-APP-272-2021 dated 16/03/2021 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), COCHIN Page 1 of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. 20401 of 2021
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the Premium of Group Mediclaim Insurance policy amounting to Rs.85,304/- during the relevant period 2015-2016. Alleging that credit on the said input service was not admissible to the appellant, Show- cause notice was issued to them and later adjudicated confirming the demand along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that they have availed CENVAT credit on premium paid on Mediclaim Group Insurance policy paid by their main unit incurred on behalf of all of their sister concerns. He submits that later proportionate CENVAT credit was distributed among the sister concern. He submits that in response to the show-cause, they have claimed that the insurance premium paid for personal Insurance policy fall within the exclusive clause of Rule 2(l)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the same was not considered and demand of Rs.85,304/- was confirmed with interest and penalty. He submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Inditrade Derivatives and Commodities Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin vide Final Order No.21026 - 21027 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019. Page 2 of 4
Service Tax Appeal No. 20401 of 2021
4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue on the other hand submitted that the appellant had wrongly availed credit of servicer tax paid on the premium of Group Mediclaim Insurance Polices for its employees as the same per se is not admissible in view of the amended provisions contained in Rule 2(l) of the definition of 'Input Service'. In support, the learned AR referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Andritz Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore : 2019 (12) TMI 122 - CESTAT Bangalore. He submits that the said view was also expressed by the Tribunal subsequently in the case of M/s. KSBL Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I:
2021 (p) TMI 1099 - CESTAT Mumbai.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in the present Appeal is: whether CENVAT credit be allowed on the premium paid on the Mediclaim Group Insurance policy post amendment to the definition of "input service" at 2(l) of CCR,2004. The issue is no more re integra being decided by the Tribunal in Andritz Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s case. It is observed at para 6 of the said order as:
"6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as far as Group Medical Insurance is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. vide Final Order No.20450/2019 has held that cenvat credit is not permissible under the Group Medical Insurance Service.........."
Page 3 of 4
Service Tax Appeal No. 20401 of 2021
6. Following the aforesaid precedents, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court on 08/02/2023.) (Dr. D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) rv...
Page 4 of 4