Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 296 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - employee compensation insurance service - period from May 2015 to April 2016 - denial of credit on the ground that the said service cannot be considered as an input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - HELD THAT:- The phrase ‘input service’ defined under Rule 2 (l) ibid has specifically excludes the life/health insurance taken by the employer for the personal use or consumption of any employee. In this case, it is not the case of Revenue that the insurance service was meant primarily for personal use by the employees. Rather, the insurance policy in this case was taken by the appellant in respect of its employees as per the statutory mandates provided under the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DHARTI DREDGING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SECUNDERABAD – GST [2021 (4) TMI 853 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. GANESAN BUILDERS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI-II [2017 (7) TMI 720 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has held that the intention of the insurance policy is to protect the employees who work at the site and not primarily for personal use or consumption of the employee and thus, the premium paid by the employer on such service should be considered as input service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|