1. Credit of service tax has been disallowed on (a) Car Insurance Policy (b) Baggage Cover Policy (c) Cash Transit Insurance (d) Executives Club Expenses (e) Outstation Travel Services and (f) Hotel Services for Executives. The amounts involved are (a) Rs.37,697/- (b) Rs.204/- (c) Rs.77/- (d) Rs.68/- (e) Rs.17,444/- and (f) Rs.525/- respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the assessees gives up the claim for credit of service tax paid on Baggage Cover Policy, Cash Transit Insurance, Executive Club Expenses and Hotel Services for Executives and only contends that credit of tax paid of Car Insurance Policy and Outstation Travel Services, is admissible in the light of decisions of the Tribunal.

3. I have heard both sides. I find that in the case of Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2010 (101) RLTONLINE 307 (CESTAT-Ban.)=2010-TIOL-160-CESTAT-Bang.] credit of service tax paid on 'vehicle insurance' has been allowed. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Fine Care Biosystems [2009 (244) ELT 372 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and Noble Grain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2009 (95) RLT 864 (CESTAT-Del.)=2010 (17) STR 128 (Tri.-Del.)], credit of service tax paid on 'Outstation Travel Services' has been held to be admissible. Following the ratio of these two decisions cited supra, I set aside denial of credit of Rs.37,697/- and Rs.17,444/- and allow the appeal. The Revenue is in appeal against extension of credit of service tax paid on (i) Group Mediclaim Policy, Directors and Officers Liability Policy, Public Liability Policy (ii) Canteen Equipment and Building Repairs (iii) Cab Service and (iv) Cars and Vehicle Repair Service. I find that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Vs. Endurance Systems India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (237) E.L.T. 204 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and Stanzen Totyetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III [2009 (92) RLT 208 (CESTAT-Ban.)=2009 (14) S.T.R. 316 (Tri.-Bang.)], the Tribunal has held that credit of tax paid on the above mentioned first service is admissible. Following the ratio thereof, I uphold the order extending credit of Rs.5,202/- and Rs.24,049/- respectively. As regards 'Canteen Equipment and Building Repairs', I hold that credit of Rs.12,697/-, is admissible in the light of Tribunal's Larger bench decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008 (89) RLT 197 (CESTAT-LB)=2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tri.-LB)]. Credit of tax paid on 'Cab Services' is also accepted to be admissible in the light of Tribunal's decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. [2008 (87) RLT 783 (CESTAT-Mum.)=2008 (12) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and T.G. Kirloskar Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II [2010 (17) S.T.R. 359 (Tri.-Bang.)]. I, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to extending credit of Rs.94,250/- on Cab Services. Credit of tax paid on 'Car and Vehicle Repair Services' is also admissible to the assessees in the light of Tribunal's decisions in Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2008-TIOL-779-CESTAT-MUM)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs. J.K. Cement Works [2008 (92) RLT 929 (CESTAT-Del.)=2009 (14) S.T.R. 538 (Tri.-Del.)]. I, therefore, uphold the extension of credit of Rs.31,412/- on the above mentioned services. In the result, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Cross objection is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue's appeal and is hence dismissed.