M\/s. TESSY ENGINEERS & ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1244 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 14-2-2019
ST\/42078\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 40314\/2019
Service Tax
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
\nFor the Appellant Ms. S. Sridevi, Adv.
\nFor the Respondent Shri L. Nanda Kumar, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing Erection and Commissioning or Installation Services [ECIS] in India as well as abroad. For the projects that are carried outside India, the appellants used to sent their skilled persons for attending the works outside India. Appellants took Overseas Mediclaim Insurance Policy for employees who<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n taken as per the mandate of labour legislations. It is incumbent upon the appellants to provide insurance to such employees to meet the risk of injuries\/untoward incidents at the place of employment. She relied upon the decision in the case of M\/s. Ganesan Builders Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai reported in 2019 (20) G.S.T.L.39 (Mad.) to support her arguments. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. TESSY ENGINEERS & ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAIService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1244 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 14-2-2019ST\/42078\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 40314\/2019Service TaxSmt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member For the Appellant Ms. S. Sridevi, Adv. For the Respondent Shri L. Nanda Kumar, AC (AR) ORDER Brief … Continue reading “M\/s. TESSY ENGINEERS & ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16923","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The learned Authorised Representative Shri L. Nanda Kumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The issue is as to whether the appellants are eligible for the credit availed on insurance services. The definition of “input service” with effect from 01.04.2011 excludes life and health insurance services availed for personal use or for <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n