Page 220 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

122 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
of refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. Against the
said order of the adjudicating authority, the respondent filed appeal before the
Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the credit. Consequently, the refund
claim was also allowed subject to verification of documents. Against the said or-
der, the Revenue is in appeal and is contesting the sanction refund claim of
Rs. 45,22,092/- for the following services :-
(a) insurance auxiliary service, and
(b) the credit taken in respect of SEZ unit
3. Ld. AR supported the grounds of appeal and submitted that particu-
larly, in respect of insurance auxiliary service, the respondent is not entitled to
avail credit as the respondent is not manufacturer of excisable goods who was
mandatorily required to obtain medical insurance for their employees, in that
circumstance, the credit is not allowable to the respondent. Moreover, the Com-
missioner (Appeals) has relied upon the case law wherein the assessees were the
manufacturer of excisable goods and in the case in hand, the respondent is ser-
vice provider only, therefore, the medical insurance for employee is only for wel-
fare of employees.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the respond-
ent submits that on medical insurance, in the case of KPMG v. CCE, New Delhi -
2014 (33) S.T.R. 96 (Tri.-Del.), this Tribunal has allowed the credit. Therefore, in
this case also, the respondent is entitled for the Cenvat credit. He also relied up-
on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Honda Motorcycle & Scooter (I) Pvt.
Ltd. - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 397 (Tri.-Chan.) to say that the credit on group insurance is
admissible.
5. With regard to the credit taken in respect of SEZ unit, it is his sub-
mission that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the respond-
ent’s own case reported in 2016 (46) S.T.R. 751 (Tri.-Del.) Therefore, they are enti-
tled to avail credit. He, therefore prayed that the impugned order is to be upheld.
6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
7. On careful consideration of the submissions, the following issue
raised before us to answer :-
(a) Whether the respondent is entitled to avail credit in respect of SEZ unit?
We find that the said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the re-
spondent’s own case reported (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as
under :-
“8. Revenue has further challenged the order of the Commissioner (Ap-
peals) in respect of invoices pertaining to respondent’s SEZ units located in
Chennai under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue contentions
is that the respondents are supposed to pay service tax on the taxable ser-
vices used outside SEZ and then claim refund of the same subject to condi-
tions of the Notification. I find the issue has attained finality in view of the
decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CCE -
2013 (29) S.T.R. 393 (Tri.-Mad.) in which it was held that even if appellant
was not eligible for refund under Notification No. 9/2009, dated 3-3-2009,
the appellants were certainly eligible for refund under Section 11B of the
Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order-in-appeal and accordingly I
uphold the order-in-appeal and reject the Revenue’s appeal.”
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  284