TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce was not an eligible input service in terms of Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, hence, alleged the aforesaid credit to be inadmissible. Accordingly, vide SCN No.178/2017 - 18 dated 3rd May, 2019, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 73,819/- was proposed to be recovered alongwith the interest from the appellant. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed alleging suppression on part of the appellants. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide OIO No. 8/20-21 dated 30 June, 2020. The appeal thereof was rejected vide OIA No. 102/2021 dated 8th June, 2021. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Sudeshna Banerjee, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopi Raman, Authorised Representative for the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of any suppression on part of the appellant are vehemently denied. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. To rebut these submissions ld. DR has laid emphasis upon the definition of input services in rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the exclusion clause thereof precisely. It is mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the said rule has formed an opinion that the services provided in relation to insurance are specifically excluded from the said definition of input services. It is impressed upon that there is no infirmity in the order when based upon those observations the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid for life insurance for the employees ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der is miserably silent about any finding for the impugned services to specifically be for the personal use of the employee/ employees of the appellant. He rather held that statutory requirement for the impugned services have not been established. These finding are apparently wrong on the face of it as Commissioner (Appeals) has miserably ignored the statute as that of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This Legislation section 6 (c) thereof specifically mandates an employer to have insurance for its employees. The another legislation mandating the said obligation upon the employer, is Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Not only this there has been Departments own clarification vide DOF No.334/3/2011 dated 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wered in favour of the assessee. 9. The issue is otherwise no more res integra. This Tribunal in Hydus Technologies (supra) has specifically held that unless there is some document to establish that the insurance services are availed for personal use or personal consumption of the employee, the services shall be eligible input service as those are the part of provident fund Scheme and provides maximum payments to the insured persons nominated beneficiary in the event of death due to natural cause accident or illness. It was also held that the employees of an organization are covered under the Employees Provident Fund Act and hence the legislation makes it mandatory for the employer to provide the provident fund to the employees. It is unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate. The copies of a few policies, which have been availed by the assessee, have been produced before us, which show that they are Workmen Compensation Policies. The name of the insured is the assessee, namely, M/s. Ganesan Builders Limited. The policies specify the area, where the construction works are being carried on and in the copies given to us the addresses are : No. 144, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai-41 and (ii) SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungulam, Podur Village, Sriperumbudur. The description of the employees for whom premium has been paid are not described by their names, but by their vocation/skill, namely, Mason, Helper, Stone Cutter, Barbender and his Helper, Carpenter and his Helper, P....