M\/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2019 (3) TMI 345 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 308 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 5-3-2019
Appeal No. ST\/42708\/2018 – Final Order No. 40403\/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri Nitin Chopra, Advocate for the Appellant
\nMs. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing various taxable services in the nature of telecommunication service, franchise service, business auxiliary service etc. They were earlier functioning under Large Taxpayer Unit having centralized registration. On verification of records, it was noticed that they had availed input service credit on insurance services during the period from April 2016 to June 2017. According to department, general insurance \/ insurance auxiliary service are not covered under the definition of input service use<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n intended to cover the risk in errors and omissions in the services provided as well as the product sold. That this has nexus with the output service and therefore is eligible for credit. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . It is a form of insurance policy which covers the risk on failure to perform on the part of financial loss caused or shortage in the service provided or the products sold. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case cited supra had analyzed this issue with regard to errors and omission policies and allowed credit. Following the same, I am of the opinion that the disallowance of credit on errors and omission insurance policies is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai SouthService Tax2019 (3) TMI 345 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 308 (Tri. – Chennai)CESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 5-3-2019Appeal No. ST\/42708\/2018 – Final Order No. 40403\/2019Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Nitin Chopra, Advocate for the Appellant … Continue reading “M\/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South”<\/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-17166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17166","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=17166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2.1 The second type of policy is transit insurance policy. Such policies are taken to cover the risk of accidents or damage during the shipment of the goods while they transit through the railways or trucks or by any other means of transportation. The appellant is to transport the finished goods as well as input such as routers, computers etc. It is highly necessary to cover the risk of any accident or damage during the transit of these goods.
\n2.2 The third insurance policy is umbrella fixed asset policy. This insurance policy intends to cover the asset \/ property and to provide insurance against loss of the risk due to fire, theft and weather damages. These insurance policies are not in regard to the benefit of employees and are not covered under the exclusion definition of input services. It is al<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5.1 The second type of insurance policy is the transit insurance policy. The appellant has explained that such insurance policy is taken to cover the risk of accident or damage of the goods such as computers, routers etc. which are transported to the premises of the customer. The ld. AR has argued that place of removal being the appellant's premises, the said credit is not eligible. However, the appellant herein is not a manufacturer but an output service provider and the definition of input service w<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n