2017 (11) TMI 1646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o how a service recipient having no scope to know whether the motor vehicle was capital goods or not shall face adversity even though he has paid tax on the service of rent-a-cab availed - credit allowed. Insurance service received to insure the life of employees and their family member - Held that: - taking into consideration the appellant was a manufacturer, its employees including their fami .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervice availed was to transport its employees to the factory as well as to promote its business. But credit of such tax was not allowed invoking sub-clause (B) introduced to exclusion clause under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for no reason. So also whether the vehicle was capital goods or not, is beyond the scope of appellant to know. 2. The second count of denial of cenvat credit o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the service of rent-a-cab availed. Accordingly on this count, appellant succeeds. 6. In respect of mediclaim, taking into consideration the appellant was a manufacturer, its employees including their family members are insured, there should not be denial of cenvat credit since insuring workers has integral connection with manufacture. As a measure of compensation under Workmens Compensation A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X