TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Authority Allows Cenvat Credit for Insurance Premiums</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI Versus INDIA CEMENTS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI Versus INDIA CEMENTS LTD. - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 423 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Whether insurance service received by the respondent qualifies as an 'input service' for availing Cenvat credit.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue, with no representation from the respondent despite notice. The department's contention was that the insurance service was received by the contractor supplying laborers, not by the respondent, and thus should not be considered an 'input service.' The appellate authority, however, held that even though the service did not directly contribute to the manufacturing activities of the respondent, it indirectly aided the business activity, making the respondent eligible for Cenvat credit on the service tax paid for insurance premium.Upon considering the submissions, the judge determined that the matter needed to be remanded. It was undisputed that the manufacturing activity of the respondent was carried out by laborers provided by the contractor who also covered them with insurance. The judge noted that during the relevant period, it was a statutory requirement for all workers to be insured, and the expenses incurred by the contractor for insurance premium would likely have been passed on to the respondent, impacting the cost of production. The judge found the insurance service indirectly related to the manufacturing activity and eligible to be considered an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, certain factual aspects needed verification, particularly whether the insurance premium paid by the contractor was reimbursed by the respondent or included in the cost of production.Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The respondent was to be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and be heard personally during the readjudication process.
TaxTMI 