TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no nomination is required. Thus, the Court Below was in error in imposing demand along with interest under Section 75 ibid and holding that the appellant company is not the beneficiary in the policy. The appellant is entitled to benefit of cenvat credit under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules on the Keyman Insurance - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.52845 of 2018 (SM) - Final Order No.51222/2019 - Dated:- 14-8-2019 - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Sohini, Advocate for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, Authorised Representative for the respondent JUDGMENT Anil Choudhary, Heard the parties. 2. The issue in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll within the Exclusion portion of the definition of input service . It was further observed that in the policy in question, in the column nomination and nominee details, the same are left blank, and nothing is filled in. Further, observing that under the policy benefits payable to the policy holder/life assured/spouse, of the life assured /or to the nominees, where a valid nomination has been registered. Further, it was observed that under such circumstances, the benefit under the policies in the happening of the event shall accrue to the policy holder or spouse of the policy holder. In other words, the benefit of the policy will never go to the appellant company. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he beneficiary. Accordingly, he prays for allowing their appeal. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative relied upon the impugned orders. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that it is clearly mentioned in the policy documents, that the benefit under the policy in question is payable to the policy holder appellant company. Nomination is generally required to get benefit of the policy. Where the policy holder is a company under the Company Act, (having perpetual existence) in such cases, no nomination is required. Thus, the Court Below was in error in imposing demand along with interest under Section 75 ibid and holding that the appellant company is not the beneficiary in the policy. Accordingly, I all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
