2018 (12) TMI 367 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – Employees Group Insurance – Personal Accident Insurance Policies – Held that:- In the appellant’s own case, for the period October 2007 to May 2011, the department has allowed credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) have totally disregarded this decision. Instead of analysing the reason for allowing credit on such services after 1/4/2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) has brushed aside this order stating that major part is prior to 1/4/2011. I do not think this is sufficient reason to deviate from abiding the judicial discipline. The mechanical approach to issues without application of mind increases litigations.
–
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the recent decision in M/s. Ganesan Builders Ltd vs CST, Chennai [2018 (10) TMI 269 – MADRAS HIGH COURT], has observed that when the insurance policies have been taken for compliance under the labour legislations, the same are eligible for credit.
–
Credit allowed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
issioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by department, thus disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand, but however sustained waiver of penalty. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Sr. Advisor of the company, Sh. K. Vijayasimhudu appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the insurance policies are aimed to compensate the workforce in the event of any accident or untoward incident that may lead to injury or demise during the course of employment. Such insurance is not merely a welfare measure, but the appellant is duty bound to have such policies as envisaged under Workmen Compensation Act. Even the policy is specifically taken as under the Workmen Compensation Insurance Scheme. Therefore the credit is eligible. He further submitted that in the appellant s own case for the period after 1/4/2011 also, vide OIA No.58/2013 (M-II) dated 21.10.2013 the said ser
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
No.58/2013 (M-II) dt.21.2.2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) have totally disregarded this decision. Instead of analysing the reason for allowing credit on such services after 1/4/2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) has brushed aside this order stating that major part is prior to 1/4/2011. I do not think this is sufficient reason to deviate from abiding the judicial discipline. The mechanical approach to issues without application of mind increases litigations. 6. The Hon ble High Court of Madras in the recent decision in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2926/2017 dt.19/9/2018 in the case of M/s. Ganesan Builders Ltd vs CST, Chennai in para 11, 12.2, 12.3 and 13, has observed that when the insurance policies have been taken for compliance under the labour legislations, the same are eligible for credit. In my view, the adjudicating authority had correctly analysed the facts and the law contained in sub-clause (C) of the definition of input services and dropped the demand. The Commissioner (App
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =