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 (12) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t availed and utilized under Section 73 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand of Rs. 1,90,090/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand and Ninety only). The interest demand is also confirmed and penalty is reduced from Rs. 10,03,625/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Three Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five only) to Rs. 8,83,200/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty Three Thousand and Two Hundred only) on proportionate basis. This appeal was partly allowed by the Commissioner. To the extent of rejection, appellant has filed the present appeal. The breakup of the service tax demand along with interest and penalty is given herein below: Particulars Period Service Tax (Rs.) Interest Penalty (Rs.) Insurance on assets and bus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cenvat credit and amount of Rs. 16,52,154/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Four only) being cenvat credit reversed should not be appropriated, interest amount of Rs. 10,13,681/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty One only) should not be demanded and recovered and amount of Rs. 8,75,593/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three only) being interest paid should not be appropriated, penalty should not be imposed under Section 78(1) of the Act for suppression of facts and contravening the provisions of the Act. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and contested the demand on merits as well as on limitation. After following the due process, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rule 2(l) (C). He further submitted that Clause (C) of the exclusion Clause in the definition of input service will be applicable only where the services listed therein are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee whereas in the present case the medical insurance is taken on the life of the Directors and foreign employees. He further submitted that Group Medical Insurance falls in the definition of 'input service' as the same is required under a statutory obligation on the appellant. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Ganesan Builders Ltd. Vs. CST reported in 2018-TIOL-2303-HC-MAD-ST, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik - 2014-TIOL-2460-CESTAT-MUM. & Reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pass is taken for the employees to travel on the business connected issues. Therefore, the same cannot be denied and is not excluded by the exclusion clause. He also submitted that major portion of the demand is barred by limitation as there is no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of taxes. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the cenvat credit on medical and group insurance policy, this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. CCT vide Final Order No. 20450/2019 dated 31/05/2019 and in the case of Sasken Technologies Ltd. vide Final Order No. 20863/2019 has denied the cenvat credit by passing a detailed order. He has also produced the copies of those decis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. As far as cenvat credit on assets and business activities is concerned, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 2,27,123/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three only) after examining the various invoices relating to cenvat credit and I do not find any infirmity in his findings and therefore I hold that appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit on insurance on assets and business activities to the tune of Rs. 2,27,123/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three only). As far as Rent-a-Cab and bus pass is concerned, I find that this falls in the definition of 'input service' as it is directly ....