Ramesh Nair ORDER
Ramesh Nair, Member (J)
1. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of Group Insurance Services for insurance of staff. The adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (A) denied the Cenvat Credit on the ground that the input services were not used either in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and it is not covered under inclusion category of input services and it fall in the exclusion category provided from 01/04/2011.
2. Shri Dhawal Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Group Insurance Policy was taken in respect of the employees of the company and the policy was issued in the name of the appellant. He submits that this Group Insurance is mandatory under the statute for the employees. Therefore, it is not optional for the assessee. Accordingly, it is related to overall business activity. He submits that as regard to reliance of the Revenue on the exclusion category, first of all the Group Insurance does not fall under the exclusion category. Secondly, all the invoices on which the credit was taken was issued from June 2009-2011 though credit was taken in March, 2014. He further submits that even for the period post 01/04/2011, the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal in the considered this issue and allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of Group Insurance Services. He placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) M/s. Ganeshan Builders Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of ST 2018 (10) TMI 269-Madras High Court
(2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & S.T. Vadodara 2019 (6) TMI 194-CESTAT Ahmedabad
(3) M/s. Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd. vs. The CCE, Customs & S.T., Cochin
(4) M/s. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs. CCE & S.T., Vadodara MANU/CS/0069/2014 : 2019 (4) TMI 120-CESTAT Ahmedabad
(5) C.C.E., Vadodara vs. Parry Enterprise India Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 263-CESTAT Ahmedabad
(6) KMPG India Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-IV 2017 (9) TMI 1261-CESTAT Chandigarh
(7) CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. MANU/KA/0835/2011 : 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar)
3. Shri V. Lukose, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also submitted a detailed submission dated 05/04/2021 wherein he placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) Mercedes Benz India P. Ltd. (MANU/CM/0438/2018 : 2018 (364) ELT 1019 (Tri-Mum)
(2) Nutrine Confectionary Co. Ltd. MANU/CB/0076/2011 : 2012 (280) ELT 516 (Tri-Bang)
(3) Semco Electric P. Ltd. MANU/CM/0258/2011 : 2012 (276) ELT 94 (Tri-Mum)
4. I have carefully considered submission made by both sides and perused the records. I find that very same issue even for the period post amendment in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, whereby certain services were excluded from the ambit of input services has been considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Ganeshan Builders Ltd. (supra) wherein after interpreting the term 'Group Insurance' with the exclusion clause held that the group insurance service is admissible input service and c........