2016 (4) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....envat Credit with respect to Medicare Services Club for its employees which according to the department is not admissible. Ld. CA argued that the First Appellate Authority has only rejected their claim for admissibility on the grounds that it is not clear whether the expenditure incurred on account of Medicare services is included in the cost of services as per CAS-4 or not. He made the bench go through a Chartered Accountants Certificate for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 to argue that expenditure of Rs. 34,41,250/- incurred by the Appellant has been included in the value of output services. It was his case that Cenvat Credit was correctly availed by the Appellant. He also relied upon the following case laws on the issue to argue that simil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourse of employment if the employees suffer injury or dies, there is a vicarious liability imposed on the employer to compensate the employee. If the employer employs its own transportation facility in order to cover the risk which also includes the risk of workers who are covered in that statutory establishment. He has to take the insurance policy without which the vehicle cannot go on the road. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act he has to obtain the Insurance Policy covering the risk of the employees. The employees' State Insurance Act takes care of the health of the employees also and casts an obligation on the employer to provide insurance services. Under these circumstances, this Group Insurance Health Policy though is also a welfare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gpur v. Manikgarh Cement reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 456 (Bom.). Further the Honble High Court also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.) = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) and observed that the observations of Bombay High Court in the case 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 to....