TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... health insurance services, these services are held to be input services as there is a mandatory requirement under the labour law to take insurance policies, credit allowed - refund allowed. Time bar - Held that: - as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it was held that for every kind of refund, the time limit as prescribed under Section 11B is applicable - refund of ₹ 5,66,916/- is time bared, and is rightly rejected. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/23119/2014 - Final Order No. 20164 / 2017 - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. S. Sivakumar Adv For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,29,612/- availed on input services for the period April 2007 to September 2008 is inadmissible pertaining to insurance service and catering services and also rejected the refund for ₹ 6,97,971/- pertaining to employees health insurance services and is not related to manufacturing activity. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without correctly interpreting the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. He further submitted that the disputed services fall in the definiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el submitted that all these services are held to be input services as there is a mandatory requirement under the labour law to take insurance policies and for this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: i. CCE, Bangalore vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd.: 2011-TIOL-866-KAR-ST ii. CCE, LTU, Bangalore vs. Micro Labs Ltd.: 2011-TMI-204-470-KAR-HC iii. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2010-TIOL-1794-CESTAT-BANG. iv. Hindustan Zinc Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010-TIOL-1794-CESTAT-BANG. 4.1 He further submitted that the entire period involved in this case is prior to the amendment in the input service definition and prior to the amendment, the scope of input service was very wide and it included any se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
