9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es – Decided in favor of Assessee. Adjudicating Authority observed that though the decision in the case of CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. Micro Labs Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 115 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] cover the disputed issue involved in the instant case, but the same has not been accepted by the Revenue, the same does not have any binding defect. Adjudicating Authority further agreed that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant: Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri S.K. Panda, Authorized Representative (AR) JUDGEMENT Per. Archana Wadhwa:- After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 46,155/-, which stand confirmed against the appellant by denying them the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the group insurance, life insurance and mediclaim of employees of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has not been challenged by the Revenue as the amount involved was much less. He also expanded the scope of the allegations made in the show cause notice by observing that such insurance was also in respect of family members of the employees. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The said order of Adjudicating Authority was uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Stanzen Tototetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) and CCE ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. Micro Labs Ltd. 2011 (24) S.T.R. 272 (Kar.). Though the original Adjudicating Authority has accepted that the issue stands covered, but he has refused to follow the same on the ground that the Revenue has not accepted it. It is surprised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
