9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit at Mouda, Nagpur and it was issued show cause notice dated 22.01.2016 proposing to deny cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 9,23,556/- along with interest and penalty. The matter was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest as well as imposed equivalent penalty by holding all disputed items viz. iron and steel products, welding electrodes, dismantling service, insurance and group mediclaim policy service as inadmissible credits. The appellant challenged the finding of the adjudicating authority before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the credit on welding electrodes and disallowed credit on the other services. The appellant is before this Bench against the order of the learned Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that such dismantling was for the purpose of erection of the machineries at the appellant's Mouda complex at Nagpur, which could not take place because of certain unforeseen situation, but in the invoice issued by service provider M/s. Mesuka Engineering, the amount has been clearly charged for both dismantling and erection besides, packing, loading, transportation, finishing etc. for which credit is admissible. The appellant has not challenged the legality of inadmissibility of cenvat credit availed on iron and steel products. She further emphasized on revenue neutral situation in arguing that in the alternate scenario, such credit could have been availed by the appellant's Kalwa unit where dismantling had taken place and the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellant on that score for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) needs no interference by this court and since no erection or installation had taken place in the appellant's factory, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in refusing cenvat credit to the appellant for the same. 5. Heard from both the sides and gone through the case records as well as relevant case laws referred by the appellant. 6. The primary dispute in the issue relates to the fact that when the appellant had not challenged inadmissibility of credit on insurance and group mediclaim policy, can it do so before the appellate authority? Going by Section 35A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is equally applicable to service tax matters also, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not manufacture the final product, besides the fact that the appellant claims that unless it provides medical facilities and insurance coverage to its employees and they are assured of proper medical attention that would generally affect their wellbeing, productivity and consequently, the manufacturing business of the appellant would suffer. In the Exclusion clause introduced with effect from 01.04.2011 in the CCR,2014, such insurance and mediclaim etc. shall be treated as inadmissible if those are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee but not all employees in a group when unrelated to their availing vacation or LTC. Hence, in my considered view, the credit taken by the appellant on insurance and group mediclaim pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
