Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2019 (5) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....common impugned order, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of both the appeals are given below: Appeal No. Period Amount ST/20323/2019 October 2014 to March 2016 Rs. 1,06,096/- ST/20324/2019 April 2016 to June 2017 Rs. 89,267/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the service tax department for providing Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency services. The workforce consists of skilled but illiterate labourers who work on monthly salary basis. The appellant had taken insurance policy called Nagrik Suraksha Policy and they have taken CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the insurance companies on the premium amount, whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ken to cover compensation likely to be paid to the labourers or their family in case of accidents while working in construction site resulting in death or hospitalization as required under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He also submitted that policy is not a normal life insurance or health insurance policy and the said policy provides cover to the appellant from financial burden in the case of an accident affecting the employee. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai: 2018-TIOL-3728-CESTAT-MAD • Jaypee Sidhi Cement Plant vs. CCE & ST, Jabalpur: 2016 (46) STR 413 (Tri.-Del.) • Ganesan Builders Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai: 2019 (20)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....les, 2004. "Rule 2(l): Input Service (i) Used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or (ii) Used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal, And includes services used in relation to modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating o such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share reg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resent appeal is admittedly after 1-4-2011 and the amendment to the provisions of Rule 2(l) defining the input service came into existence w.e.f. 1-4-2011 only. The definition is extended by providing the inclusive as well as exclusive clauses. The exclusion clause was effective w.e.f. 1-4-2011 and Clause (C) of the said exclusion specifically excludes the services provided in relation to outdoor catering and health insurance or life insurance, etc. Admittedly such services, prior to 1-4-2011, have been held to be covered by the definition of input services. In fact, the need for exclusion would arise only when the services are otherwise covered by the definition. Legislation, in its wisdom, has excluded certain services from the availment ....