Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 325 - AT - Service TaxCenvat credit - input services - used for insuring plant and machinery, building stock and other assets to cover up the risk of damage which may occur due to fire, burglary etc. - Held that:- I observe that the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Apex Court in Maruti Suzuki case law and the Sundaram Brake linings case law is inapplicable since the decision in Maruti Suzuki is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills ltd vs. CCEx Meerut I [2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT] and also the decision of this Tribunal in Sundaram Brake Linings is reversed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate Versus M/s. Visteon Powertrain Control Systems (P) Limited, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2015 (3) TMI 736 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. By following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs CCE [2016 (6) TMI 161 - CESTAT CHENNAI], DCW Ltd. Vs CCE [2015 (5) TMI 973 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and CCE Vs India Cements [2011 (2) TMI 786 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], wherein it was held that insurance service protects raw materials and finished goods in transit as well assets of the company, for which credit cannot be denied for availing this service, the appellants are entitled to cenvat credit on the insurance services used for insuring plant and machinery, building, stock and other assets of the appellant. Imposition of interest and penalty - employee insurance services involving an amount of ₹ 10,442/- - appellant has already reversed the credit availed - Held that:- appellants have admitted the liability on Employee Insurance Service involving an amount of ₹ 10,442, the same is upheld. However, since there is no dispute that they had sufficient brought forward balance in their credit account which was not utilized, there is no reason to levy interest on the unutilized credit. Similarly, there is no evidence on record that appellant had intent to avail ineligible credit, Therefore, no penalty is imposable. The amount of ₹ 10,442/- is confirmed and the interest and penalty are set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
|