https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246673 The appeal challenging the grant of CENVAT credit for insurance auxiliary service was dismissed by the Tribunal. The respondent, a bulk drug manufacturer, introduced a group insurance scheme for employees, which the department argued did not qualify as an input service. Despite the department's appeals against previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's eligibility based on precedents from the Karnataka High Court. Citing cases like Stanzen Toyotetsu and Millipore India, the Tribunal affirmed the decision in favor of the respondent, allowing the CENVAT credit for insurance services covering risks to employees. en-us Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246673 The appeal challenging the grant of CENVAT credit for insurance auxiliary service was dismissed by the Tribunal. The respondent, a bulk drug manufacturer, introduced a group insurance scheme for employees, which the department argued did not qualify as an input service. Despite the department's appeals against previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's eligibility based on precedents from the Karnataka High Court. Citing cases like Stanzen Toyotetsu and Millipore India, the Tribunal affirmed the decision in favor of the respondent, allowing the CENVAT credit for insurance services covering risks to employees. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246673