2012 (10) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal filed by the Revenue. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice. 2. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and submits that the Commissioner has not discussed the relevant aspects to determine whether insurance service was received by the respondent. The case of the department is that the respondent, during the period of dispute, employed labourers supplied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fact that the manufacturing activity of the respondent was undertaken by the labourers provided by the contractor is not in dispute. All the labourers are covered by insurance at the cost of the contractor who paid the insurance premium. It appears, during the material period, it was a statutory requirement that all workers be appropriately insured. Further it cannot be gainsaid that the expenses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or otherwise factored into the cost of production of the final product. If this fact is established, the respondent can be said to have received the insurance service as an input service. For this purpose, the matter has to be readjudicated by the original authority. 4. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X