Denial of CENVAT Credit for Errors & Omissions and Transit Insurance Policies Deemed Unjustified

The denial of CENVAT Credit for Errors and Omissions Policy and Transit Insurance was deemed unjustified by the Tribunal. The Errors and Omissions Policy covers financial risks due to service or product failures, previously allowed for credit. The Transit Insurance Policy, covering goods transportation risks, was also considered eligible for credit as input service for an output service provider. With the Revenue failing to present contrary decisions, the denial of credit was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit for Errors and Omissions Policy and Transit Insurance

Errors and Omissions Policy:
The appellant argued that the denial of CENVAT Credit for Errors and Omissions Policy had been previously decided by the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases for different periods. The Bench observed that Errors and Omissions Policy covers risks related to financial loss caused by failure to perform, shortage in service, or products sold. The Tribunal had previously allowed credit for such policies in the appellant's case. Consequently, the disallowance of credit for Errors and Omissions Policy was deemed unjustified and set aside.

Transit Insurance Policy:
Regarding the Transit Insurance Policy, the appellant explained that it covers the risk of damage to goods during transportation to the customer's premises. The Revenue argued that since the place of removal was the appellant's premises, the credit was not eligible. However, as the appellant was an output service provider, the definition of input service was not limited to manufacturers. Therefore, any input service used for providing output service was eligible for credit. The disallowance of credit for the Transit Insurance Policy was considered unjustified and set aside.

Comparison of Arguments:
The Advocate for the appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support the case, while the Authorized Representative for the Revenue failed to provide any contrary decisions to challenge the findings in the appellant's case. Consequently, the impugned order denying CENVAT Credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.

---