9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PP/2018-19 dated 12th September 2018] of Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigad to the extent of coverage of persons other than employees which was allowed in the impugned order, the primary issue canvassed is judicial precedent in their favour. The dispute, having come up before the Tribunal once before, had been remanded back on the plea of appellant that the computation was incorrect and of the issues having been judicially decided in their favour. It is the grievance of the appellant that no heed was paid to these in the fresh proceedings. 2. Notice was issued to the appellant, a provider of various services, for recovery of Rs. 27,94,999 availed as credit under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilies jointly for the remaining three years, separate arguments were put forth on each by Learned Counsel for appellant. 3. The order of the first appellate authority now impugned is undistinguishable from the pre-remanded one with the finding that, as no service was provided to the appellant by family members of employees, inclusion of the said cost in the price of the final output service would not suffice for availment of credit of tax paid for which reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - III [2016 (45) STR 74 (Tri.-Chennai)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupati v. Nutrine Confectionery Co Ltd [2012 (26) STR 556 (Tri. - Bang.)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein was not about the cover for families of employees but about the eligibility to CENVAT credit of tax on premium paid for employees opting for premature retirement under a voluntary separation scheme. 6. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Emerson Export Engineering Centre v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III [2017 (49) STR 423 (Tri.-Mumbai)], in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III [2017 (47) STR 273 (Tri.-Chan.)], in Titan Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - III [2018 (15) GSTL 75 (Tri.-Chennai)], in Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - II [2018 (364) ELT 1019 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and in Sundaram Brake Linings v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged with a premium which does not vary with the number of dependents who are additionally covered by the same insurance scheme. In other words, even if none of the dependents were within the coverage, the premium amount would not alter or vary. Accordingly no part of the premium can clearly be distinguishable as or attributable to the extension of coverage to family members. Consequently the decisions cited by the Learned Authorised Representative are also in favour of appellant. Therefore, following the decision cited in PTC Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. supra the appeal is allowed with consequential relief of refund of credit accumulated.' whereas the decision in re Manikgarh Cement pertained to usage, directly or indirectly, in man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
