CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Excise Appeal No. 60355 of 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 97-98/YG/CE/2016 dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon-I]

Carrier Air Conditioning & Refrigeration ……Appellant Ltd Narsinghpur, Khekri Daula Post, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Gurugram, Haryana VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & ……Respondent Service Tax, Gurugram-I Plot No. 36-37, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 APPEARANCE:

Mr. Amar Pratap Singh and Mr. Niren Sharma, Advocates for the Appellant Mr. Shantanu Kumar Meena, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60101/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 25.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 22.01.2026 S. S. GARG :

The present appeal is directed against impugned OIO dated

30.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon, whereby the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs.14,13,269/- along with interest and also imposed the penalty of Rs.10,18,457/- by denying the Cenvat Credit availed on the insurance for transportation of the goods on FOR destination basis.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that:-

 The Appellant are engaged in manufacture of air-conditioners and refrigerators falling under Chapter Heading 84151010 & 84183010 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and also provide repair & maintenance service to the customers.

 Appellant’s records were audited by A.G. (Audit) Haryana, Chandigarh from 18.10.2010 to 20.10.2010 and it was observed that the Appellant had taken Cenvat Credit on various services which appeared to be inadmissible as the said services did not fall within the definition of ‘input services’ under Rule

2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

 Accordingly, the SCN dated 06.05.2011 was issued to the Appellant proposing to disallow the Cenvat Credit on various services.

 Thereafter, another SCN dated 09.04.2012 was issued to the Appellant proposing to disallow the Cenvat Credit on various services as mentioned in the earlier SCN.

 Both the SCNs were adjudicated vide the OIO dated 17.10.2012 and demand of Rs.2,65,26,884/- was confirmed after allowing Cenvat Credit on courier services, renting of immovable property, storage & warehousing services and record management services.

 Against the OIO dated 17.10.2012, an appeal bearing no.

E/55456/2013 was filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal.

 During the pendency of the said appeal, one more SCN dated

07.08.2015 was issued to the Appellant proposing to deny Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,27,424/- on construction service and Rs.15,69,070/- on insurance service.

 The Tribunal, while deciding the appeal no. E/55456/2013, vide its Final Order No. 28/2015-CHD dated 02.12.2015, allowed the Cenvat Credit on various input services namely renting of immovable property service, construction service, architect service, interior decoration service and travel agent service; further, the Tribunal remanded the matter for the limited purpose of re-computing the Cenvat Credit availed on insurance of goods beyond the place of removal.

 Thereafter, the learned Commissioner, vide the present impugned OIO, adjudicated the SCN dated 07.08.2015 and on the direction given in the remand order of the Tribunal, allowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,27,424/- availed on construction service, but disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.10,18,457/- availed on insurance for transporting the goods to the customers’ premises on FOR basis for the period from April 2006 to February 2012 (remand back period); and further, the Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,94,812/- was disallowed on the same service for the period from August 2014 to July 2015 (period as per SCN dated 07.08.2015).

 Being aggrieved by the impugned OIO, the Appellant have filed the present appeal.

3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

4. The