S.S. Garg ORDER
S.S. Garg, Member (J)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby he has rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceutical products issued with private bonded warehouse and IBM sanction order dated 11.6.2004. The appellants availed CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on their input and service tax paid on their input services. Appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services viz., general insurance, canteen service and group medical and health insurance service. The appellant filed a refund application for Rs. 21,06,241/- based on the Orders-in-Appeal No. 380-381/2012 CE for the period April 2007 to September 2008. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund on some input services in the original adjudicating proceedings. Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who passed order giving partial relief and remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority passed order granting partial relief against which the appellant filed appeal once again before the first appellate authority i.e. for the second time and the Commissioner (A) concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal of the appellant by holding that the refund claim for Rs. 1,29,612/- availed on input services for the period April 2007 to September 2008 is inadmissible pertaining to insurance service and catering services and also rejected the refund for Rs. 6,97,971/- pertaining to employees health insurance services and is not related to manufacturing activity. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without correctly interpreting the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. He further submitted that the disputed services fall in the definition of input services and the same has been held in number of decisions rendered by the higher judicial fora. He further submitted that in the case of canteen services (outdoor catering services), the food is provided to the employees. He also submitted that it is a statutory requirement under the labour laws to maintain canteen facilities and it is indirectly related with the manufacturing of the final products. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly held that there should be more than 250 employees for availing the CENVAT credit on canteen services. He also submitted that now by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court has held that there is no necessity of having 250 employees for claiming CENVAT credit on canteen services. Therefore, I hold that canteen services fall in the definition of input service and the appellant is entitled to claim refund of CENVAT credit in respect of outdoor catering services. Further, the appellant is situated at a remote area in the industrial estate and therefore, it is all the more important to provide the canteen facilities to the employees. He also submitted that as per the Board's Circular No. 120/1/2010-ST : MANU/DSTX/0002/2010 dated 19.1.2010, there cannot be a different yardstick for establishing the nexus for taking of credit and for refund of credit. Similarly with regard to refund of CENVAT credit of service tax on general insurance services and employees group medical and health insurance services, the learned counsel submitted that all these services are held to be input services as there is a mandatory requirement under the labour law to take insurance policies and for this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:
i. CCE, Bangalor........