TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d happening occurs. The employees who are not covered under ESI Scheme are well covered under the insurance policy for any untoward eventuality, therefore, it is also a moral obligation on the part of the employer to look after the welfare of the employees who are working inside or outside of the premises. Moreover, insurance coverage to the employees is mandatorily required as per the Factories Act - it is found that Rule 2(l)(ii)(BA) (C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, inter alia excludes life insurance and health insurance from the purview/ambit of the definition of input service when such service is used primarily for personal use and consumption. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The Department was at liberty to call for any information, put in query, undertook any verification, if felt necessary. All the factors taken together nullified Department s allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of extended period is uncalled for - Tribunal in the case of BCH ELECTRIC LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV [ 2013 (9) TMI 551 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] has observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n availed by them since obligation on the part of the employer is the primary object behind such coverage. They stated that such insurance policies in different names are primarily and basically meant for protecting the company from various unascertained monetary liability arising out of employment of various persons in the organization. It is obligatory and statutorily required to bring them under the coverage of insurance against the possibility of any untoward happening. Fulfillment of such statutory obligation undeniably has a nexus with their production and clearance of final product. Therefore, the employees who are not covered under E.S.I. Scheme are statutorily and mandatorily required to be covered under such insurance policies to eliminate risk factors of any unpleasant eventuality. The Appellant also stated that as a welfare measure, the employer cannot shirk their responsibility in this regard. In this context the appellant cited the following decisions wherein the Tribunal has allowed the credit on similar facts.:- (i) Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai [2016 (43) STR 454 (Tri.-Chennai)] (ii) Fiem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-III [2016 (43) STR 470 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily has got no applicability since it is an obligation on the part of the employer company to bring their employees under insurance coverage which is the primary object behind such policies. Therefore, as a welfare measure, it is obligatory as well as mandatorily required to bring them under insurance coverage against the possibility of any unfortunate happening which is not at all desirable. Hence there was absolutely no irregularity in availing Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on such policies. The demand confirmed for recovery of the same is unwarranted and not maintainable. The Appellant relies on the following decisions in support of his submissions:- (i) Sundaram Fastners Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-II [2016 (43) STR 454 (Tri.-Chennai)] (ii) Fiem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-III [2016 (43) STR 470 (Tri.-Chennai)] (iii) Hydus Technologies India Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-II [2017 (52) STR 186 (Tri.)] (iv) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE ST (LUT Mumbai)] [2016 (45) STR 383 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (v) CCE, Delhi-III v. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt.Ltd. [2017 (47) STR 85 (Tri.-Chennai)] 7. The Appellant further stated that no penalty is imposable on them since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final products. Amongst them some are covered under Employees State Insurance Schemes as per norms laid down in the scheme. Rest remain uncovered from any insurance scheme though they are engaged in various jobs as assigned to them. The company as employer cannot shirk their responsibilities so far the safety and security of the employees is concerned specially if any untoward happening occurs. Ld.Advocate vehemently argued that the Appellant was under the obligation and compulsion to cover the risk factor as well as safety of their employees through Employees Health Insurance and Group Accidental Insurance Policy and it would be an erroneous view if such coverage is treated as primarily for consumption of employees and thereby excluded the same from the scope and ambit of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submits that as an employer the Appellant cannot ignore welfare of their employees. Accordingly, the employees who are not covered under ESI Scheme are well covered under the insurance policy for any untoward eventuality, therefore, it is also a moral obligation on the part of the employer to look after the welfare of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
