9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H.C. Saini, D.R. Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra: Both the appeals have been filed being a different Order-in-Appeal No. 258 & 231/17-18 dated 28.9.2017 and 19.9.2017. The period of dispute is December 2007 to March, 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement which attracts Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... su India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III - 2009 (14) STR 316 (Tri.-Bang.), which was upheld by the Karnataka High Court. He also submits that the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee also in the case of M/s EXL Service Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, LTU - 2017 (5) TMI 1461-CESTAT-New Delhi. 4. On the other hand, Shri Saini, ld. DR has justified the impugned order. He r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Vs. CCE, Pune-III - 2014 (35) STR 632 (Tri.-Mumbai). 7. By following our earlier decision (supra), the premium paid on the group policy for the employees as well as their family members is allowable for the purpose of Cenvat credit. Moreover, the employee is earning not for himself but also for the family members. 8. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and both the appeals are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
