2013 (11) TMI 1498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that period involved in this case is August 2005 to March 2008 before definition of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was amended. He relied upon the following case laws where credit on insurance of the employees is allowed. i) Surani Ceramics Ltd. Vs. CCE Rajkot [2012 (27) STR 270 (Tri-Ahmd)] ii) CCE Raipur Vs. M/s Beekay Engg. & Castings Ltd. [2009-TIOL-1376-CESTAT-DEL] iii) M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd. Vs. CCE Bangalore-III [2009-TIOL-697-CESTAT-BANG] iv) CCE Nasik Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. [2008-TIOL-1180-CESTAT-MUM] v) CCE, Mumbai-IV Vs. M/s GTC Industries Ltd. [2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-MUM-LB] vi) M/s Coca Cola India Pvt.Ltd., Pune Vs. CCE, Pune-III [20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Ultratech Cement could not be applied to the situation in the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. since providing canteen facilities to the workers was mandatory and failure to do so attract penal conclusions. In the case of Coca-cola India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 (Bom.) = 2009 (242) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.) and in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that for eligibility of service tax to be taken as cenvat credit, it should be coming under the definition of input service in terms of definition of input service and the definition of input service is that the same should be related to the business activity of the assessee. In fact the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ....