75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

November 2015

[2015-TIOL-2106-CESTAT-MUM] Commissioner, Service tax-I, Mumbai vs. M/s FIL Capital Advisors India, Pvt. Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Merely because bills are in personal name, it cannot be said that services are not used by the Respondent when the expenditure towards that bill is booked in their account and CENVAT credit on group and medical polices of employees is allowed as the same is a requirement as per the Factories Act.

Facts:
The Revenue filed an application for rectification of a mistake of the Tribunal on the ground that in Revenue’s Appeal one of the ground was that the first appellate authority while allowing the CENVAT credit did not give any finding on how the input services of group and medical policies for employees and outdoor catering had a nexus with the output service and further how the bills in personal names were admissible as credit.

Held:
The Tribunal held that the services of general insurance for group and medical policies are in respect of the employees and as per the statutory provisions under the Factory Act and therefore are allowable. Moreover, outdoor catering has been allowed in various judgments and in respect of bills in personal name, the expenditure towards that bill was booked in the Respondent’s account and thus the credit allowed by this Tribunal was maintained.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015-TIOL-2081-CESTAT-MAD] M/s TV Sundram Iyenger and Sons Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

2015 (39) STR 995 (Tri.- Mumbai) Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III