Page 165 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] CHECKMATE INDUSTRIAL GUARDS PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF CGST, NOIDA 251
2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 251 (Tri. - All.)

IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
CHECKMATE INDUSTRIAL GUARDS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST, NOIDA
Final Order No. 71975/2019, dated 10-12-2019 in Appeal No. ST/71259/2018
Cenvat credit - Input service - Workmen Compensation Insurance Pol-
icy - Service Tax paid on premium for employees insurance policies covering
risk/mishappening with the employees during their duty period, eligible to
Cenvat credit - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 4]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari, Authorised
Representative, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Gaurav
Gupta Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Anupam
Kumar Tiwari Learned Superintendent appearing on behalf of the Revenue, I
note that the appellants were in the business of providing ‘Security Services’ and
‘Detective Agency Service’ and other services. The appellant has subscribed
workmen compensation insurance policy in respect of employees with the inten-
tion of covering the appellant for payment of compensation to the employee if
any mishappening occurs with the employees when they are on duty. It ap-
peared to Revenue that service tax paid on premium of such insurance policy is
not admissible as input service Cenvat credit, therefore, proceedings were initi-
ated for denial of said Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1.15 lakhs. The Original
Authority disallowed the said Cenvat credit and confirmed the demand with
interest and equal penalty. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not inter-
fered with that order and therefore appellants are before this Tribunal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant have submitted that the said in-
surance policies were for covering the liability of the appellant for payment of
compensation in case any mishappening takes place with the employees when
the employee is on duty. He has further submitted that the premium for the said
policies were borne by the appellant and not borne by the individuals for whom
the said policies were taken.
3. Learned AR has submitted that he is supporting the impugned
Order-in-Appeal.
4. Having considered submissions from both the sides and on perusal
of record, it is very clear that the appellant is engaged in providing security ser-
vices and detective agency service. To cover the risk of bearing the liability of
payment of compensation to the employees in case of any mishappening, appel-
lant subscribed to said insurance policy for their employees. Therefore, the ex-
penditure incurred was for running of the business and therefore, the said ser-
vice has to be held to be input service. Therefore, the service tax paid on work-

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  165