Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Both Sides Are In Appeal Against The ... vs 5. On Merit, I Find That The Services Of ... on 17 August, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
SINGLE BENCH
COURT NO.1
Appeal No. ST/60512,60541/2016
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 104-ST-APPEAL-II-MK-GGN-2016 dated 29.07.2016 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Gurgaon]
Date of Hearing/Decision: 17.08.2017
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
KPMG India Ltd. Assessee
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-IV Revenue
And
CCE, Delhi-IV Revenue
Vs
KPMG India Ltd. Assessee
________________________________________________
Appearance
Shri. Abhishek Garg, Advocate- for the Assessee
Shri. Harvinder Singh, AR- for the Revenue
CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO: 61562-61563 / 2017
Per Ashok Jindal:
Both sides are in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Management Consultancy Services and Sponsorship Service. During the course of their business, the assessee availed cenvat credit on Group Insurance Policy for employees during the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. The assessee has also paid service tax on Group Insurance Service and Professional Indemnity Service during the period of 2007-2008, for any action against their advice. The cenvat credit sought to be denied on the above services on the ground that these services do not qualify as input services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The matter was adjudicated, the Cenvat credit was denied to the assessee. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A), the cenvat credit availed on Professional Indemnity Insurance was allowed and the cenvat credit availed on Group Insurance Policy for the employees was denied. The order against which the cenvat credit was denied on Group Insurance Policy for employees, the assessee is in appeal and for the order of allowing cenvat credit on Professional Indemnity Insurance, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions.
4. I find that it is fact that the assessee is service provider and these services has been received by the appellant in the course of their business of providing output service, therefore, as per the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 269 (Bom. wherein, the Honble High Court of Bombay held that any services availed by the assessee who is provider of output service is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the services used for their business of providing output service. The similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ernst and Young Associates LLP reported in 2017-TIOL-2942-CESTAT-CHD, wherein this Tribunal observed as under:
5. On merit, I find that the services of Rent a Cab, Asset Insurance, Health Insurance and Professional Indemnity Insurance were received by the respondent in their business of export of service for the period 2006 to 2011. During the relevant time, the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) has held that any services availed by the assessee who is provider of output service is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the services used for their business of providing output service. Further, as per CBEC Circular No. 943/04/2011-CE dated 29.04.2011, which has been clarified that the services availed prior to 01.04.2011, cenvat credit is available to the assessee. Therefore, on merit, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent.
5. I hold that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit on both the services in dispute.
With these observations, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 3 ST/60512,60541/2016