9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee. - Appeal No.E/966/2011-SM - Final Order No.WZB/AHD/2013 - Dated:- 6-9-2013 - MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For the Appellant : Shri Abhijeet Dagadia, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri P.N. Sarvaiya, Astt. Commissioner (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: H.K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No.SA/43/ Vapi/2011, dt.12.05.2011. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether appellant is entitled to the Service Tax credit of Service Tax paid by the appellant on the personal insurance of its employees. 2. Shri Abhijeet Dagadia, (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that period involved in this case is August 2005 to March 2008 before definition of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of final product. Honble High Court also took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 456 (Bom.). Further the Hon’ble High Court also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.) = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) and observed that the observations of Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement could not be applied to the situation in the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. since providing canteen facilities to the workers was mandatory and failure to do so attract penal conclusions. In the case of Coca-cola India Pvt. Ltd. reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case is similar to the one which was under consideration in the case of Ultratech Cement by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Further, I also find that the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of Millipore India Ltd. is also directly on the same service. No stay has been granted and only an appeal has been filed. Therefore I have to follow the decision of Co-ordinate Bench. Under these circumstances, I hold that cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance taken to pay workmen’s compensation to the Insurance Company is admissible. Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. 5. The period of demand in the present appeal is August 2005 to March 2008 before the amendment carried out under Notification No.3/2011-CE(NT), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
