Page 182 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

652 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Cenvat/Cenvat Credit of Service Tax (Contd.)
squarely covered by Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 228
(Tribunal - LB)] and Siddharth Tubes Ltd. [2008 (228) E.L.T. 193 (Tri. -
Del.)] - Therefore, issue no longer res judicata - Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2002 — Lupin Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T. (LTU), Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 576
— Cross marking on invoice for purpose of mentioning cheque number by
which payments made to supplier of goods against such invoices cannot
be a ground to deny Cenvat credit when other documents such as bank
payment vouchers, bank statement, etc., reflecting correlation of said
cheque number with the said invoice - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004 — Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Daman (Tri. -
Ahmd.) ......................................... 404
— Detective services availed for finding out units engaged in manufacture
and sale of assessee’s spurious products being in the nature of market
research and having direct nexus with its business, eligible to input
service credit - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Prabhat Zarda Factory
(I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr. of C. Ex., Noida (Tri. - All.) .................. 405
— Input services - Erection, Commissioning and Installation services -
Exclusion clause in definition of input services confined to construction
or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part
thereof or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of
capital goods - Said exclusion does not cover Erection, Commissioning
and Installation service - Credit admissible - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 — Thermax Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara (Tri. - Ahmd.) ... 118
— Input services - Medical Insurance for employees of service provider -
Cenvat credit on said services allowed by Tribunal in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 96
(Tri.-Bang.) following a decision of Karnataka High Court in 2011 (23)
S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) - Said High Court decision was in respect of
manufacturer of excisable goods and credit was allowed in view of
mandatory requirement under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 -
However, mandate of Act ibid does not appear to be applicable to service
provider and hence Tribunal’s decision ibid not agreed with - Matter
referred to Larger Bench for deciding admissibility of credit to service
provider - Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Commissioner of Cus., C.
Ex. & S.T., Noida v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (Tri. - All.) ................... 121
— Limitation period of one year prescribed under third proviso to Rule 4(1)
of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not applicable for taking of credit which was
initially short availed due to clerical error but availed later on after
rectifying mistake particularly when initial taking of credit was within
stipulated time — Continental Engines Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST, Alwar (Tri. - Del.) . . 402
— on input services used in export of output services in pre-GST regime,
refund admissible in post-GST regime - See under REFUND/REFUND
CLAIM ........................................ 297
— refund admissible on services provided to SEZ unit - See under
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............................ 121

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  182