TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal Adjudicating Authority and the 1st Appellate Authority, have gone totally wrong in travelling beyond the show cause notice. When the group insurance/mediclaim/life insurance cover to the employees of manufacturer is a requirement of Section 38 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and in this case it is not disputed that the provisions of this Act are applicable to the appellant, the appellant have to provide insurance cover as per the provisions of this Act to their employees failing which, they would face penal action. Therefore, the availment of the insurance services for providing insurance/mediclaim/life insurance has to be treated as an activity in or in relation to manufacture and would be covered by the definition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the ground that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 316 (Tribunal) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as while the Tribunal’s judgment is in respect of group insurance/health policy for the employees of a manufacturer, in this case the insurance cover is for the workers alongwith their family members. On appeal being filed by the appellant to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 29/3/10 upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order on the same ground. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an input service eligible for Cenvat credit, that same view has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. Micro Labs Ltd. reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R. 272 (Kar.), that both Assistant Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals) taking note of the judgment of the Tribunal/High Courts in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner (supra) have denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the insurance/mediclaim/life insurance policies provided by the appellant cover the family members of the employees also, that in this regard there is no such allegation made in the show cause notice, that it is settled law by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment of Cenvat credit on Service tax paid on Insurance of the employees is not covered under the definition of input services as defined under the Rule 2 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as it is not used in or in relation to manufacture of the Final Product or for providing of output service as there is no nexus with manufacture of Final Product and clearance of final product from the place of removal and for providing of output services. From the show cause notice, it is clear that the department’s allegation is that the appellant have taken Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the premium paid for group insurance/mediclaim/life insurance policies in respect of employees as per Annexure A to the show cause notice. Annexure A to the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
