Page 219 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 121

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 121 (Tri. - All.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., NOIDA
Versus
HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Interim Order No. IO/ST/4/2019-CU(DB), dated 6-2-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/56714/2013-CU(DB)
Refund - Cenvat credit - Services provided to SEZ Unit - Issue no
longer res integra in view of decision of Tribunal in 2016 (46) S.T.R. 751 (Tri.-
Del.) - Cenvat credit and consequent refund admissible - Rules 3 and 5 of Cen-
vat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 7]
Cenvat credit - Input services - Medical Insurance for employees of
service provider - Cenvat credit on said services allowed by Tribunal in 2014
(33) S.T.R. 96 (Tri.-Bang.) following a decision of Karnataka High Court in
2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) - Said High Court decision was in respect of manu-
facturer of excisable goods and credit was allowed in view of mandatory re-
quirement under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - However, mandate of
Act ibid does not appear to be applicable to service provider and hence Tribu-
nal’s decision ibid not agreed with - Matter referred to Larger Bench for decid-
ing admissibility of credit to service provider - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004. [para 8]
Matter referred to Larger Bench
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. HCL Technologies Ltd. — 2016 (46) S.T.R. 751 (Tribunal) — Referred ......... [Paras 5, 7]
Commissioner v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd.
— 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) — Distinguished ......................................................................... [Para 8]
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2010 (19) S.T.R. 93 (Tribunal) — Referred ................................................................................ [Para 8]
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2016 (45) S.T.R. 397 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................. [Para 4]
KPMG v. Commissioner — 2014 (33) S.T.R. 96 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ............................ [Paras 4, 8]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, AR, for the Appellant.
S/Shri B.L. Narasimhan and Utkarsh Malviya,
Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The Revenue is in appeal
against impugned order wherein the credit on insurance auxiliary service and
credit in respect of SEZ unit was allowed.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is service provider and
located at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. They are providing services to their overseas
clients as well as domestic clients. The respondent filed refund claim of
Rs. 2,44,78,646/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period Octo-
ber, 2010 to December, 2010. On verification, it was found that the respondent
was not eligible for credit of Rs. 54,84,068/- which was found to be inadmissible.
Therefore, a show cause notice was issued 17-2-2012 to the appellant for rejection
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  283